I think like you said, the weighting for this factors may be arbitrary. But I feel if you show your work, that should be fine and generate discussion.
I’d probably include how resilient or mobile each repeater is also. Because the difference between a Moran/peacemaker and a pitcher is the ability to defend itself from destruction, and how it’s able to re-deploy as required without consuming ammunition. Cause 99% of PanO’s Repeaters all carry guns of some type.
Thanks for the suggestion. I do agree with your point, but ultimately those variables are more tedious than I am willing to consider, within the scope of this study. The model conforms quite well without them. This is already a lot more work than I had intended it to be. One way to express the efficiency of (n) separate repeaters on a given hacker would be the average pts for each model divided by the hackers WIP; so Efficiency=((PtsA+...PtsN)/N)/HackerWIP. However, this would have to be applied on a case by case basis. Repeater-weighted efficiency metrics are now available on Sheet2.
I pretty much never do. Given that it's the go-to weapon on points efficient models CB knows it's undercosted.
For the purpose of quantifying hacking capability, i think repeaters are super important in N4. Hacking through a firewall gives such a large bonus. Looking at the game, I would have the following repeater projection Rankings: 1. Repeater On Infiltration model (e.g. Moran) 2. Deployable Repeater Minelayer on Infiltrating model. (e.g. Guilang) 3. Fast Panda on Camo FD model (e.g. Heckler) 4. Repeater On FD model (e.g. Pathfinder) 5. Deployable Repeater on Infiltrating Model (e.g. Hunzacut) 6. Deployable Repeater on Combat Jump/Parachutist (e.g. Hellcat) 7. Fast X-Visor Pitcher (e.g. Tsyklon) 8. X-Visor pitcher (e.g. Druze) 9. Fast Pitcher (e.g. Kiss!) 10. Pitcher (e.g. Cyberghost) 11. Fast Panda on Deployment Zone model. (e.g. Inteventor) 12. Fast Deployment Zone Repeater (e.g. Fugazi) 13. Deployment Zone Repeater (e.g. Securitate) What do you guys think of that ranking? Did I miss anything? EDIT: Added DZ Repeater
That's putting unreasonable standards for criticism. It also doesn't leave the room open for factors beyond raw win% to be the observation that inspires evaluation.
And I'm sure you aren't throwing whatever bullshit you can to stop people from criticizing the state of the game, regardless of the evidence.
Yeah that's bull. You're just infuriated that people are making assessments about the game with conclusions you don't like.
Locust's just about the one unit you really want that (Breaker) Combi Rifle on. It's got no Template defense and the enemy knows exactly where it's coming from, but has high MODs for shooting. Attacking from outside Chain Rifle distance is key to getting value from Locusts, since they trade down against anything short of elites like Custodiers or Heavy Infantry. It's part of why I've started spamming them when I take them at all- the SMG+WildParrot guy is straight-up there to die to Templates in order to create an opportunity for a better-armed Locust to get into the backfield and earn the price of the whole bunch in dead support units. Other units that I miss the rifle ranges on are similar single-wound elites brought primarily for killing, with the rifle's value rising with how predictable the unit is- my MRRF does not appreciate Specialist Paracommandos losing range, we actually need those to kill stuff unlike Kosmoflot with all its heavies. On actual support units the SMG's a no-brainer though, especially Hackers which benefit hugely from the AP when spraying down Immobilised heavies or backline cheerleaders where the points discount and improved Suppressive Fire are especially strong.
Understandable really, it is excessive work, but sectorials sometimes behave drastically different from the "vanilla" army. I am glad we are in agreement, You almost never do, I usually do, so as I said, its a topic that will never be solved, they are cheap and optimize profiles nicely, but their range is an issue, I know for me Aida is far more useful if I roll a multi rifle than her SMGs. I can understand the arguments about Suppressing fire SMGs though. That would be true, but this is not what they are discussing.
@daboarder telling people to put their work in "something with an impact factor" is a way of saying "shut the fuck up" in not so many words. You can action on him or not.
I see why you could see it like that, it is not how I read it, regardless we get an interesting study that I am more than happy to read.
I’ve been perusing this only recently as I’ve not had much time until this evening. It’s very interesting and you’ve done a great deal of work here. I would like to see more data sheets like this in future from yourself and from other like minded members. Others have noted things that you could consider adding which I agree with them in and would be interested (I think you’ve actually put a few in now) to see though there are factors that as you stated may be “more tedious” to add and may not have much of an impact. I would like to see as much included as possible though in any data set but I realise you’re doing this in your own time and it can be time consuming. Thank you again. There are indeed many things you’ve brought up in these data sheets to consider.
How many times a study is referred to in relative journals in a period of two years after its publication. I do not remember if it is on average though, does not really matter. In theory is it to calculate how impactful a study is, I find it flawed as a method of calculating that, but it is not the point. You can infer that in our microcosm he said to put it somewhere that counts, I think a dedicated thread in the forum will have impact and be referred.
No, he literally said not on the forums, so your inference is wrong. He's saying he doesn't want to hear it, no matter the evidence, because he disagrees with the conclusion. It was meant to be an insulting dismissal of others' arguments.
@Hecaton I appreciate your back up in this thread, but I finally have people looking seriously at the data and I'd really prefer to keep the discussion focused on that. @daboarder and I have both moved on. @psychoticstorm just to clarify, impact factor is actually a metric for journals, not individual studies.
Okay I'm looking into this. Thanks for the suggestion, its helpful to have other peoples input, especially on how to weight these variables. You rate pitchers above fastpandas? Pitchers come in pairs and have a better range, but Pandas are guaranteed and I value that highly. If I do add this it will be as a separate tool that people will have to play with on their own. Many of these skill+equipment combos are unique, and all of them are highly restricted. It won't be very useful for looking at the factions in aggregate; for that purpose the faction distribution is more informative. However it might be a nice tool for comparing lists.
