1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.
  2. Hemos actualizado nuestra Política de Privacidad acorde con la nueva RGPD. +Info // We've updated our Privacy Policy to comply with the GDPR. +Info
    Dismiss Notice

How competitive are MO?

Discussion in 'PanOceania' started by Context, Aug 14, 2019.

  1. TheDiceAbide

    TheDiceAbide Thank you for your compliance.
    Warcor

    Joined:
    Nov 23, 2017
    Messages:
    607
    Likes Received:
    2,092
    Yeah, they seem like entirely different armies to me. I don't particularly seek out CC in any of my armies, even with the troops that are good at it, unless it seems like the most efficient way to get the job done, which is rare. I do like having the option though, because sometimes it's the right thing to do.
     
  2. Titus

    Titus Varuna Beach Commando

    Joined:
    Nov 23, 2017
    Messages:
    281
    Likes Received:
    348
    I like to come to this thread every 1-2 months to see if you guys have figured out how to play MO. But every time I just get a bit sad and go back to Varuna.

    Keep it going guys.
     
  3. eciu

    eciu Easter worshiper

    Joined:
    Nov 23, 2017
    Messages:
    3,551
    Likes Received:
    4,131
    Atm. best option is core of Magister with a TAG and Joan or not (or optional Santiagos).
     
  4. MikeTheScrivener

    MikeTheScrivener O-12 Peace Kepper

    Joined:
    Mar 5, 2018
    Messages:
    2,084
    Likes Received:
    2,741
    IMHO best link teams to build your list around are 4 Magister with 1 Santiago or 5 OS link. Sticking the Father knight with them can be a bit of a trap.
     
  5. Solar

    Solar Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 4, 2017
    Messages:
    2,619
    Likes Received:
    4,327
    I would say that Santiago and FK in an OS link is pretty banging.
     
  6. MikeTheScrivener

    MikeTheScrivener O-12 Peace Kepper

    Joined:
    Mar 5, 2018
    Messages:
    2,084
    Likes Received:
    2,741
    yeah, its alright. Just expensive. If you're trying to keep link costs down in order to take other toys they're better left at home or in a Haris team.
     
  7. TheDiceAbide

    TheDiceAbide Thank you for your compliance.
    Warcor

    Joined:
    Nov 23, 2017
    Messages:
    607
    Likes Received:
    2,092
    Honestly, I'm strongly considering 3-man links with the HI, going full core seems excessive, you're paying a ton of points for +3 BS, and those points could be spent elsewhere expanding your board control (like a pair of Spec Sergeant Infiltrators).
     
  8. MikeTheScrivener

    MikeTheScrivener O-12 Peace Kepper

    Joined:
    Mar 5, 2018
    Messages:
    2,084
    Likes Received:
    2,741
    I don't think you'll find many people here advocating for a full HI link that aren't Magisters. I seriously don't think ive ever even seen someone post so much as a sample with the Joan+hospitaller
     
    meikyoushisui likes this.
  9. Titus

    Titus Varuna Beach Commando

    Joined:
    Nov 23, 2017
    Messages:
    281
    Likes Received:
    348
    That´s nice. I used to play 2 Santiagos + 3 Magisters before the update anyway. The shitty thing now is where to put the Lt of course.
     
  10. Jason839

    Jason839 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 24, 2018
    Messages:
    141
    Likes Received:
    99
    I did about a month ago. I still run the crusade link. I like it. It tanks a ton of shots, and hits like a truck.
     
  11. daboarder

    daboarder Force One Commander
    Warcor

    Joined:
    Apr 26, 2017
    Messages:
    3,505
    Likes Received:
    5,141
    nothing to see here. Cant wait for the cognitive dissonance though 82981739_2748090481978360_127259704886820864_n.jpg
     
    #351 daboarder, Jan 27, 2020
    Last edited: Jan 27, 2020
    Cthulhu363, Doa, Stiopa and 1 other person like this.
  12. Judge Dredd

    Judge Dredd Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 19, 2018
    Messages:
    465
    Likes Received:
    656
    You're right. We should be playing Vanilla. There's clearly no point in playing sectorial PanO. Or maybe we should all move over to Druze.
     
    Barrogh likes this.
  13. daboarder

    daboarder Force One Commander
    Warcor

    Joined:
    Apr 26, 2017
    Messages:
    3,505
    Likes Received:
    5,141
    maybe people should Shrug, vanilla is strong
     
  14. Barrogh

    Barrogh Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 26, 2017
    Messages:
    1,941
    Likes Received:
    1,656
    Context, please. What events, what skill levels etc. Because I feel we're back to like page 8 of this thread.

    And yeah, vanillas will be more interesting as CB will keep adding cheap-ass alien profiles with everything a piece of a specific role needs.
     
  15. daboarder

    daboarder Force One Commander
    Warcor

    Joined:
    Apr 26, 2017
    Messages:
    3,505
    Likes Received:
    5,141
  16. AdmiralJCJF

    AdmiralJCJF Heart of the Hyperpower
    Warcor

    Joined:
    Feb 21, 2017
    Messages:
    3,081
    Likes Received:
    4,070
    No, it's the last 6 months of ITS data all together.

    But it's still interesting.

    Not that I think that the point you are trying to make here is any more justified than arguing from this data that Acon is terrible.

    Still, I'm hardly surprised to see you making it. Cognitive dissonance and all.
     
    Judge Dredd and chaos11 like this.
  17. daboarder

    daboarder Force One Commander
    Warcor

    Joined:
    Apr 26, 2017
    Messages:
    3,505
    Likes Received:
    5,141
    Fair, ok 6 months of ITS data, so whats our working hypothesis based on this data, that MO are outperforming the other PanO sectorials and that ASA is either under performing or as suggested by the lower games count is not being played as often due to it being a legacy sectorial list.

    proper scientific thought is to adjust the hypothesis to fit the data, not reject the data to fit the hypothesis, thats where the cognitive dissonance comes in ;)
     
  18. Teslarod

    Teslarod Trebuchet Enthusiast

    Joined:
    Nov 23, 2017
    Messages:
    1,426
    Likes Received:
    2,844
    flat out copy paste of the response in the Haqq thread to that graph:
    If you compare the supposed 6 month WR Numbers with the 2019 overall ones you'll have a hard time buying into Acon, Spiral and Dashast, top 10, top 5 and top 1 in overall 2019 TP stats, to be rock bottom in winrates.
    It's much more likely that should be 57.29% WR for Acon, 54.55% for Spiral and 55.58% for Dashat than the numbers displayed here.
    Same for Aleph, Tohaa and OSS all being below 50% despite being top 5 TP overall.
    There are some numbers that match well, so it can't be a flat out error like accidentially taking the numbers for "didn't win" for everything.
    However with a sample size of up to 4 digit games this appears suspicious.
    Since Ieldin is checking his numbers to match CB's might as well figure out if there's something wacky in this chart.
    Winrate is not a useful metric in Infinity with Ties, Minors and Majors granting different points. A Faction that scores a lot of Ties and Majors is going to Outperform a Faction that has more Wins, but most of them Minors or less Ties and more losses.
    These are the proper stats to look at and there aren't many surprises there:
    the statistics provided are from @Ieldin Soecr over on this thread https://forum.corvusbelli.com/threads/2019-in-numbers-its-data-analysis.36359/

    [​IMG]

    The average TP / Max TP for Tournament per Faction. The higher means the more of the possible max TP where actually acieved.

    [​IMG]

    A little more complex metric. It is the % of wins for a faction devided by the % of usage. The higher the number the more wins are achieved per paticipant compared to others.

    [​IMG]

    Number of minor and mayor wins to losses per faction. Draws are not included.
    Click to expand...

    Factions sorted into a tierlist by TP Performance (with old JSA excluded for obvious reasons):

    1. 0.54 Dashat
    2. 0.52 Shasvastii
    3. 0.51 Tohaa
    0.51 Spiral Corps
    0.51 OSS
    0.51 Aleph Vanilla
    0.51 Varuna
    8. 0.48 Combined Army Vanilla
    0.48 Caledonia
    0.48 SAA
    11. 0.46 Ikari
    12. 0.45 Foreign Company
    0.45 TAK
    0.45 FRRM
    15. 0.44 Steel Phalanx
    0.44 Ramah Taskforce
    0.44 Hassassin Bahram
    0.44 IA
    19. 0.43 Nomads Vanilla
    0.43 Ariadna Vanilla
    0.43 Neoterra
    22. 0.42 Starco
    0.42 Bakunin
    24. 0.41 MO
    25. 0.4 JSA
    0.4 Onyx
    0.4 Tunguska
    0.4 Haqq Vanilla
    29. 0.39 ISS
    0.39 USARF
    31. 0.38 Corregidor
    32. 0.37 Morats
    33. 0.36 PanO Vanilla
    34. 0.35 QK
    0.35 Druze


    That's the spread. Take it with a grain of salt (check the pickrate lists why). Still some of these armies are flat out performing better than others.
    Mind you that the difference in performance in between 0.35 and 0.54 is not roughly 50% as the number suggests. Scoring low on average also means you're very very unlikely to win a tournament, you need those majors to have a realistic chance at getting a trophy.
    @Ieldin Soecr could probably pull tournament win relative to games played percentages. They'll show that the top 7 have won significantly higher amounts of tournaments relative to games played compared to the bottom 7.
    QK and Druze might not have won a tournament at all given their relative lower games played and last years numbers.

    Tournament wins are a much lower sample size but an interesting metric to determine the Skill involved in playing a Faction up to its potential.
    A faction that has a high winrate with low avg TP and avg tournament victories suggests a low Skill ceiling or a flat out bad Sectorial lacking tools (Corregidor 51,64% WR but low avg TP, MO 49,37% WR with bottom 3 avg TP).
    Low winrate with high avg TP and tournament victories suggests a Faction is difficult to play but a high Skill ceiling if you can use it correctly (Dashat with 44.42% WR but highest avg TP, Spiral with 45.45% WR but top 3 avg TP).
    I would not recommend to trust those Winrates at all tbh, something seems off apart from Major/Minor/Tie being very important.

    A few things to point out is stuff like Vanilla PanO or ISS. Performs terrible, yes, but looking at what people run suggests that's partly to blame on new players running with their Faction box and enough stuff to make it 10 Orders... that just doesn't turn out very well by default.

    Overall this more or less matches last year's number, shows the old problems and what N4 needs to address.

    MO is doing pretty bad in tournaments (aside from inconseqeintial average winrate, consisting mostly of Minor Wins) and they're not placing or performing well overall for the last year.
     
    #358 Teslarod, Jan 28, 2020
    Last edited: Jan 28, 2020
    LaughinGod, Cadmo, Barrogh and 4 others like this.
  19. Judge Dredd

    Judge Dredd Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 19, 2018
    Messages:
    465
    Likes Received:
    656
    Flat win rate can be a poor metric to determine what is going on for any game unless your only goal is casual balance which I think Infinity has down very well as displayed. But that doesnt describe how well its completing missions and how well it does on the table overall. Being able to bully the opponent into 1-0 victories isnt really that good and you wont understand that by just win rates.
     
  20. Teslarod

    Teslarod Trebuchet Enthusiast

    Joined:
    Nov 23, 2017
    Messages:
    1,426
    Likes Received:
    2,844
    On the plus side we have an indicator what kind of list (or at least Profile performs) well for MO thanks to the Faction+Profile+Pickrate Spreadsheet.
    https://infinityfiles.s3.eu-central...019/Additional/Faction+Profile+Pickrates.xlsx

    Now those numbers are a lot smaller in sample size and parts of them are going to be extremely skewed
    but overall we can at least extrapolate a couple hints from it.
    upload_2020-1-29_14-29-14.png

    I restricted the list to at least 30 lists have ran that Profile.
    Green - best Performing troops for the average MO list (remember to apply salt anyway)
    Yellow - performaing equally well, still fairly low numbers (unreliable take with huge amount of salt)
    Orange - support Troops and Order Monkeys, more of an indicator of a spammy list than the actual Troop Profile having the impact
    Grey - middle of the road, nothing special to say about them
    Red - Not doing too great (loads and loads of salt)
    Lilac - red with low sample size

    Crosschecked some archetypes across factions. For example defensive Links and as a result linked ML's/ARO pieces are doing pretty well across all factions. The FK ML and his OS Link performing nicely appears to be true.
    Linked HI AHDs are doing pretty well overall, non LT DeFeresen might not be all that terrible (which would match my actual performance with it)

    This is less of a "best of" and more of an easy to use and generally good performance list.
    Joan AP CCW LT (1.09) vs Joan DA CCW LT (0.85) shows there is a lot of variance in here that is unlikely to be completely related to the Profile or says more about the players always upgrading to DA CCW having less experience or even less likely might suggest that spending the point for the DA CCW hits a certain breakpoint, where you can't include one particular troop important to MO lists anymore (maybe a bit of all 3).

    Anyway here it is, have fun with it. I for one am happy the Seraph HMG appears to do well.