Late n3 data seemed to indicate nomads were underperforming. I have the evidence https://forum.corvusbelli.com/threads/2019-in-numbers-its-data-analysis.36359/
Kinda depends on the data being used. For example in the above stats from N3, Aleph and Toha with their 60% win ratio is what I would call "dominating" (Varuna was up there too with 59). Nomads with their 51% for Vanilla, and below 50% for all sectorials is definitely not "dominating". (Kinda surprised, but not really, that Tunguska with their so-broken-full-auto Kriza was even below Morats in win ratio XD )
Eh, I've usually got a good head for things. I got banned from a few FB groups just for not going along with some Australians' wrongheaded analysis that vanilla Ariadna was unplayable with the 15 order cap, and I turned out to be right on that one. Predictable that you fling insults when you can't back up your points, though. Go figure.
Nomads are always going to trend with lower win rates than their power level because so many beginners pick them up compared to other factions. The trick is to look at data of more experienced players playing other experienced players.
Nomads are one of the most played factions and one of the most popular for beginners. Previous results had showed some pretty drastic shifts in power level of factions when comparing top 25% of its vs all. Like Druze jumped from one of the worst factions to top 4. Not directly, but this thread is about critiquing an existing presentation of statistics, not putting the burden of proof on me.
unrelated. Citation needed. I specifically asked for numbers, and I'm getting more feelz. Cool. Link? Also Druze is not Nomads. EDIT: I vaguely remember that someone made stats like that. I also vaguely remember not walking away from them with "Nomads are actually OP at high skill" in my head, but maybe I misremember. Ready to be proven wrong, really am. You did not reply to "this thread", but to my post. And my question was about anyone having any kind of alternative numbers at *any* point of game's life.
I like that you're saying the stats CB released are bad because any Nomads aren't in the top ten, but suddenly the stats are good when they say that ariadna is top 10.
And you can see in that thread people also had preconceived notions that Nomads were dominating in N3.. Which they were not..It feels like deva vu.... If someone wants to pull the N4 ITS data and provide their own analysis, go for it. It is possible and it will allow you to prove your point. But as the CB released infograph is all the data we currently have, it gets frustrating when people just dismiss it. Like I have stated before, the data is not gospel. People can and are right that it can feel bad playing against Nomads. I am not going to dispute that. But i don't think it too much to ask if you are saying that Nomads are OP and dominating ITS, provide some evidence.
I'm hesitant to weigh in on this, but I want to throw out a suggestion (and then run and take cover). How much of the complaint about Nomads is that they are OP, and how much is the complaint that they are not fun? These two things are not the same, and one can be true without the other being true. Nomads could not be OP and therefore not be dominating tournaments, while still having a set of tools that makes them not-fun to play against (or as). Is the argument crossing paths because one side is arguing OP while the other is arguing not-fun and they cannot possibly see eye-to-eye when they are looking at different things?
Nope, it's quite related. You can go ahead and do the legwork yourself; Nomads consistently rank in the top most played factions. It's not a matter of feels, it's a matter of fact. What *is* a matter of feels is how you attack me and not my points; if you looked at things soberly you'd know I was right. Why would it matter? I'm not going to go fish it out for you, you can go do it yourself. They're N3 stats, not directly relevant to today. The important thing is that the power level of a faction piloted by a newbie vs. piloted by someone in the top 25% of ITS players can vary dramatically. Of course I didn't reply to the thread, I made it. Yeah, you can go find them.
Genuine question: how. Cool. I can even believe that Nomads are popular without a link. Still unrelated. You claimed that Nomads draw larger percentage of noobs to pros than other factions which lowers their win ratio, which masks their OPness. And this is something that might strengthen your point, if it was supported by anything. Overall popularity does not. How do I attack you? I was curious if anyone had any data that showed Nomads to be OP at *any* point in the game. I was curious because I always (since N2, 10 years to be exact) hear how Nomads are OP but never see anything approaching a proof. But maybe I just missed it or forgot it? Yeah I can. But honestly I do not care about the game enough to go on a deep search through the forum and maybe even internet in general. I was hoping that for all the emotions flying around someone would have a link ready or a clear enough memory of it to find one quickly to throw it in my face "see there was at least one point in time that we said that Nomads were OP and numbers actually showed that". You clearly won't. That's ok. But maybe someone else will.
Funny thing is, combined army is by CB stats the most popular army, and they came second the efficiency rankings. If popularity makes armies do worse Combined really must be somthing to get do high.
The issue is that there's someone on the design team who *likes* un-fun, un-interactive mechanics. Remember, they wanted Morans to have camo at the start of N4.
And for Jammers to have Intuitive Attack, in spite of every other nerf they received (which ended up being simultaneously too much and not enough). And for Impersonation to be Impersonation.
I'm saying that player skill is a factor but unless you have any evidence that a certain amount of players of X faction are worse than Y faction then you have no basis to say which way it adjusts the data. You have as much evidence that Nomad players are on average bad and that skews an OP faction statistically down as they are on average good and skewing an underpowered faction up. You could say that about any faction with no base or evidence. Player skill being the same, which we can only really assume, the limited data we have says ALEPH and CA are dominant.
Basically there's zero evidence that backs up what you are saying and limited evidence that backs up what you are saying isnt true. You'll forgive me if I therefore am perfectly prepared to say that as we currently stand, you appear to be factually wrong.
