And the Moran and Vostok. They were worse than Evaders at release. Personally, I'm not sure they have the Vostok right even now.
I agree, the Vostoks, Morans, Grenzers and Evaders aren't right. They need to be made better to get a more balanced game and give yu Jing and combined army some interesting competition.
Sorry to anyone exited about this, but it's likely not very accurate given CB's previous attempts at reporting trend chart like this without numbers. If @Ieldin Soecr could be bothered, we could take a look at how far off it's this time around. Half the playing field was wildly differetent than CB's chart when looking at ITS numbers with hundreds of tournaments the last time around. However, at a glance this one does look more believable than the previous attempt.
Nomad "scope creep" evidently isnt making them too powerful because they're not even in the top ten of faction efficiency at all. People just thought they were OP, have been statistically been shown they aren't, so are grasping for some other way to complain about it which can't be statistically proven or disproven because it's essentially "I feel like CJC are too fun" which is a bit of of joke. If they have got so good at so much stuff how are they not even present in the top ten most efficient factions? A mystery. Or a lot of people vocally spouting on the Internet at full of it. Ironic, as someone currently vocally spouting on the Internet.
Yeah, I wouldn't believe that graphic as there's absolutely no info on how it was calculated or what the data actually is or what it represents.
The graphic will be believed or not by people based on whether it fits into their preconceived notions, as always I would like to see the basis behind the data. If its its simple aggregate of average win-loss data across playable options in ITS though then I think that'd be a very reasonable basis behind saying well these are the ten options that win more than they lose the most, and therefore the ten most effective options in terms of doing well in tournaments. People want data to back up what they think. They'll reject it if it doesn't and embrace it if it does.
Cynical, but perhaps fair, in this social media echo chamber post-Trump hell we live in now. Way to believe the data because it fits into your preconceived notions, I guess.
I don't think it needs to be so black and white. There is a definite feeling that Nomads are very powerful, from the opponents and the some nomad players. And while we do not know all the background of the data, the metrics shown seems to generally track. I am not saying it is gospel, but it should not be ignored blatantly. Doesn't it generally track that CA is a very popular army in ITS with MMRF, Caledonia, and Druze not being popular? PanO being the least popular Vanilla Army seems to track as well. Was anyone surprised that CA, Tohaa, and Shas had good performance metrics? Why can we accept that, but not the other parts of the chart? I will admit, personal experience and feelings has a place. Data (while limited) has a place. Can we admit that with a game as complex as infinity that each should be given weight and to not dismiss them?
For me it is crystal clear that Nomads-Combined-Tohaa-Corrregidor and Bahram are the strongest armies in order. Now we can include OSS to this list after fireteam changes. I want to play phalanx , Tak, bakunin and Aleph vanilla cause of taste. This efficiency list is nothing . It will change if better players take nomads to tournaments.
Even if the data was somehow inaccurate or biased, I seriously doubt it is to point were nomads would go from "not-even-top10" to top1 and broken". Maybe they're just good, or even average. This adds up to the fact that the people claiming nomads are OP are doing it based on their own limited experience (no disdain in that formula, it's just they don't have actual data) and are a priori only a fraction of the already limited player sample this forum offers. If we try to factually assess if nomads are broken or not in a non "post-Trump hell" way, there is absolutely no reason to go for the "broken" option. Except for someone who only values his/her own experience.
This data, on its face value, unarguably states that no Nomad Sectoral or Vanilla Nomads is in the top ten most efficient I.e win/loss ratio factions in ITS Preconceived notions or not, that's what it says. Just because people accept or reject the data based on preconceived notions does not mean the data is therefore entirely useless or meaningless. But also its interesting that seemingly nobody is claiming that ALEPH is a problem. Even though statistically they are the most powerful. I'll be honest, I think they're absolutely fine to play against! But it's interesting that the perceived notion of power level that some people have is at odds with the only (,limited) data we have.
No. The "data" says nothing whatsoever because it doesn't explain what was measured or how it was measured. It asserts a ranking of "efficiency" without defining that term. It's as useful as a blank page. Accepting it because it fits your preconceptions and rejecting it because it doesn't are both entirely fallacious. The only defensible approach is to reject it entirely regardless of whether it fits yours preconceptions. Unfortunately, this is the Internet. Your previous assertion that Nomads "have been statistically been shown" by the data to not be OP is 100% false. The data contain no statistics whatsoever. It would be equally false to assert that Nomads have been statistically shown to be OP. We simply don't have statistics on the question, and CB's list doesn't contribute any valid evidence one way or the other.
My assertion is they aren't OP. I have limited data to support this. There is, to my knowledge, no data which suggests otherwise, merely individual anecdotes.
Didn't Carlos mention in the video how they measured this stat? Battles fought / victories across all ITS games since N4 iirc.
In the update #26 video, he says that popularity is based on how many battles were played in tournaments since the beginning of N4 (approx. 7:45 in the video). Efficiency or win rate was calculated as the amount of battles played vs the amount of victories achieved (approx. 9:00 in the video).
Win/Loss data gets more prone to anomalies the fewer data points you have; this is part of why Tohaa score so well in just about every dataset released for this game except Sales, their tiny population of often highly-experienced players distorts that kind of data. The popularity data also puts a lot of it into perspective; newer players will often start with a recently-released box set and CA have got one nearly annually for a while now so no wonder they're popular. MO has been redesigned and rereleased often as well, with that and the halfway interesting fluff explaining the fact that it's almost as popular as the rest of PanO put together by now. Nomads are also extremely well supported (likely washing out the impact of the top players), but honestly I think this data damns CA the most- with a neverending flood of new models reaching back past the start of N4, the incredibly easy to collect Shasvastii and especially CA Vanilla are both somehow Top 10 factions for win rate. The absence of any Haqqislam armies in the efficiency table is a headscratcher for me, usually those guys are some of the most hardcore hobbyists I know of.
Well, thanks to Ieldin I happen to have the numbers of ITS 12 (originally I wanted to do a write-up why Grenade Launchers shouldn't be so bad how they currently are but I lost interest on that topic) lying around, thus I could do somehing with them. I'm going to focus only on the popularity and I won't show any absolute numbers in the following diagrams since it doesn't feel appropriate to disclose information CB apparently doesn't want to be public. First of all the factions ranked from the most popular to the least popular. And as we can see the generic CA leads the ranking pretty clear (about 7% of all lists are CA lists) and the top 5 factions account for about 1/4 of all lists. Also not surprising most NA2 Armies dwell in the bottom. And here you can observe how the ranks change from ITS 12 only to the N4 official ranking (which also includes the data of the almost completed ITS 13). Nevertheless ITS 12, despite being the "Pandemy Season", displays the general trend quite well since most armies swap their ranks by 2 or less. The most notable armies here are the Spiral Corps with a raise of 12 ranks and Bakunin with a fall of 11 ranks. Spoiler: Popularity 2019 and Popularity comparision And just for comparision the popularity ranking of the year 2019 based again on the data collected by Ieldin. If I recall it right 2019 is the year after Op.: Coldfront was released and both sectorial armies were highly anticipated. And also most of the NA2 as well as the CA (quite a surprise when seen from the N4 perspective) dwell in the bottom 10. Still the top 5 Armies make up 1/4 of all lists. Here's a comparision how the army popularity is distributed. The CA's lead is way more pronounced than the OSS' lead back in 2019. Although we have to take into account that 2019 clips two ITS seasons which can affect a faction's popularity. Oh, this is my 1000th post here!
Thank you. I wonder if the noticeable change in Tohaa popularity in ITS could be somewhat contributed to the rise of TTS? Also it seems pretty consistent that PanO and Haqqislam Vanilla Factions struggle with popularity. I am surprised with Haqqislam, but metas are probably very different.
I guess this might be the most plausible conclusion I would add to that the guess that many players bought the big 300 points box back in 2016 and during the pandemy's lockdown phase those minis got painted (whilst playing Tohaa on TTS) and then played at RL tourneys. I have the big Tohaa box too (Satellite winner prize) but didn't touch it until recently when I got the Spiral Corps box as a gift
