Also from that thread: “AGAIN IMPORTANT: I'm pretty confident that the data I use are correct, but cannot be 100% certain. Because of this take all the results I present with a grain of salt. Also do not use the data presented here to jump to any conclusions. This is a highly aggregated view on the data, so trying to make specific statements like "Unit A is overpowered because it has a high pick rate" is not responsible.”
Again, HOW IS IT LOW TIER!? Is it pick rate? Lack of msv? Dice don’t roll well with them? I think PanO as a whole is low tier but that’s just because I bandwagon dislike them as a statement of rebellion.
Is low tier because it has low wining and low average TP, wich means that they usually get lower positions than other factions. They can win and compete against anyone? Of course. Are they as good for that as others? No Yes, there is missing data, but we can assume that the data is not "faction related" so that should be the same for all other factions. It would be very strange that the missing data were mainly from "winning players from a few selected factions"
To me that’s just like the rating system of classes in world of Warcraft. It only really means something if you are fighting for world first completions, high mythic+ tiers and high arena/RBG ratings. It really only matters to a small percentage of players. Guess that’s why it doesn’t make sense to me. Oh well #panowasamistake
It is meaningless to you. Data across the board, Tunguska weaknesses, compering to other factions and how flexible they are show Tunguska's place.
Produce some credible data, don't just talk about it. I already stated my position with the data that @Armihaul cited, it's not even close to a full data set. You are entitled to your opinion, and I respect that for what it is; but don't parade it like it's fact.
Someone did some work to see the state of the game. Is incomplete data, of course, but is a good way to see how part of the game is doing. You ask for data jet you refuse to accept it because is different from what you want to believe? Then this debate is what is meaningless
What I care to believe doesn't matter. That data shouldn't be used to make any conclusions about factions or units by the author's own admission. I just wish certain posters would be more transparent that the views they present here are their own subjective opinions, not fact. I'm clear that what I present is my opinion. Also, I pointed out that presenting a different view point probably wouldn't change anyone's mind. So yeah, I guess this is all pointless. Except maybe to the impressionable new player that just bought into TJC who comes to this forum looking for advice, only to find people disparaging his new faction. I really feel for those people, and I want to give them some encouragement in the face of authoritative opinion masquerading as fact.
Too many weeaknesses or shortcomings in one place. No MVS2, no wildcards, less flexible link teams, weak midfield presence, no chain of command, no cheap WB, no camo lieutenant...
Bro you’re not making sense lol That’s how I feel about these forums besides the art section. I posted a thread back in December looking for input and it still has 0 replies. Everyone just wants to bash stuff because it doesn’t auto make them win games.
Yes. Is better to say them that TJC is a highly competitive faction because a few people get good results (thar might be as biased as the data shown), while there is data that might tell us that TJC is, at minimum, hard to use... Of course You are missing the point here. Someone tells that there are problems, flaws in this sectorial, someone just negates it, then there is data, and again, negation instead of showing something to prove wrong
Yeah, I felt bad about not posting in there. I'm taking TJC to Rumble and didn't want to give away my plans to the community at large, not that they are stellar or anything but yeah. If you ever want to talk about TJC man, PM me it's hard to have the convo here because of all the noise. I love to go on about them and I just did fairly well at i4 with them.
Where we differ is you look at what TJC doesn't have. I look at what they do and make it work. FFS, it's almost as bad as the PanO forums in here nowadays.
The biggest issue I find with TJC is that if you’re not running the HM core then you may as well play vanilla. Otherwise you’re just hamstringing yourself with a bog standard fireteam in place of the best toolbox in the game.
I try to make it work, really. But what they can do well is not enough to compensate what they lack, because they lack more than most factions. Maybe is meta thing, maybe is just my hability, I know, but when using other factions I don't have the same feeling during the game
Pretty good I think, but not for certain. HM core is hard to support properly and Rumble is a tough run. I like them for firefight and frontline, but I need the Szally for Show of Force, so I'm not sure I want two lists with such huge point sinks, I may want a few more orders in a second list. EDIT: Also at Rumble there are something like 16 (or more) players declared as Shas. Hollow Men become a lot less impressive when they have to play around dazers.
Yeah vanilla nomads is strong AF, and some of my toughest games as TJC have been versus them. But Raoul is my profile man-crush.
