For you Kuarnix.
For you Kuarnix.
Whining about whiners is significantly less productive than whining about Khador releases which is at least mildly on topic. Not that I can claim to be any better in addressing this to the 3rd degree.
Claiming that using an allegory using whining and a dislike of one's toys whilst playing is in no way an attempt to convey a sense of shame by evoking childishness is simply disingenuous. There is no reason to duck owning what you meant. It's probably correct after all.
My problem is that it's not effective. Of the many ways to influence mood and espirit de corps you will not find forum bashing anywhere on the list. I'm not above being a troll personally but I don't think that is what you were going for.
If your objective is to generally increase the image of X's popularity there are several good ways to do such. Octavius posted a thread about his actual usage of 3Vlad and how refreshing he was to play as a caster and a few moments where the model shined. The response I would think was generally favorable aside from a large side discussion about the effects of Sacrosanct. An attempt to quell negativity with a statement of "Man up and stop whining" Misquoted for effect - lead to many posts of aggressive counter positioning and an outcry of "******" in the force. Neither do I believe was this your intended effect.
It's obvious from your efforts that you are trying to create a sense of positive constructive discussion and catalog useful tactical insights but I hasten to add that some thought spent on how best to achieve this goal would be time well spent.
Because speaking for the trolls feeding us doesn't make us go away /shrug.
And RE Kuarnix.... nice graph mad props.
1) If you can't look back at a game that you have lost, and find more than 1 mistake you have made, you're not looking hard enough.
2) If you find the above statement offensive, you need to work on your ability to take constructive critisism moreso than your ability to play Warmachine.
Pointing out that on a competetive level, Khador is winning >9% of tournaments (ie: more than our fair share), and that the best way for Khador players to win more is to point them to focusing on their own playstyle is not calling them children, telling them to man-up, or to quit whining.
You could increase the MAT of every model we have by 5 and it would have a negligable effect on Khador's performance in the hands of someone who refuses to hold themselves accountable for their loses. Good stats will not fix bad play. They might make it a bit more forgiving, but in the end, mistakes made by players are the #1 reason why games end.
I don't think anyone here said that they were losing games because of some flaw in Khador. In fact most people on this forum probably don't even think that they can compete in the masters. That doesn't change the fact that at the very top we want the game to be balanced.
As far as model choice being a cause of a loss, that is a real reason that someone can lose. Either you the person doesn't understand the models place or the model has no place. For instance, I don't know how to play doom reavers, although I have seen them used to great effect by other khador players. I know if I stick with it I could probably run them well though by practice. Until I see someone use Bombadiers to great effect though, I am going to stay away from them because I know taking them is shooting myself in the foot.
There is a lot of diversity in the game, and things are pretty well balanced. It just happens that sometimes, what is top of the heap changes.
While the bombardiers aren't amazing models, and I am a little unhappy that they hit 11 points for the full unit, I am willing to take them in a MoW spam list. The shot they make is very effective, and they are pretty vicious in melee.
From the very beginning, I thought about what I could have done to do better, and I asked my opponents about what they thought I could have done better. At this point if I lose a game, it is usually a silent 5-10 minutes of me thinking about the game and what I did wrong, but I do it any time I lose(which is rare these days). <3
And ridiculing someone's capabilities or style is NOT the best way to get them to perform better. This should be obvious no? You could be right on all counts in every way about their deficiencies but that style of "motivation" breeds resentment in most cases. Negative reinforcement is the better way to get someone to NOT do something. Positive reinforcement to get someone TO do something. This is community college level psychology. Now this /waves hand at the majority of own post isn't directly referencing anything you have personally said or done. but it HAS been happening... frequently.
So who has been childish and how? Cause I'm not seeing it.
@ThatRickGuy your post is very well done and says a lot about the way people view their games and skill.
Press Ganger for the North Denver Metro Area.
Head Warmachine/Hordes Organizer for Feast of Blades.
If we took this principle seriously then it would be impossible to discuss balance because privateer press or people like you could always insist that the models were effective but the players are the problem. Every single time. If we took this principle seriously, we would have no way to discuss whether or not a game is balanced. So we would have to take it on faith that this game is balanced.
Maybe your right, maybe a zerkova list featuring bombadier and kossite spam is just bad because no one bothered to look at their own faults first before pointing out that there were flaws in the models and composition of the list. .
I am saying that the majority of negative feedback is based on a lack of knowledge, experience, and/or perception. That there is a vocal minority who turns to the internet to express their frustrations with the models while ignoring their own shortcomings.
It's not a blanket statement that all negative feedback is invalid. On the contrary, negative feedback, especially when grounded in significant playtesting with multiple skilled players, is highly valued! It really is, it's part of being a PG, working with the community to identify very specific issues, to playtest the heck out of them, and to report back what we see.
But that feedback has to be extremely well targeted. General "Khador sucks" and "Conquest is over priced" complaints will go no where. If you want to get negative feedback to be considered, here's my recommendations:
1) Be Positive! Really, you're far more likely to get quality feedback when you're being pleasant
2) Be Specific! Vague complaints aren't actionable. We can't investigate "sucks".
3) Be Proactive! Test, test, test! Think a model is underpowered? Play it! Alot! Learn what it can and can't do, ask others what their experiences are or if they have ideas to improve the performance. The more refined you can get your description of the issue, the more likely people will be to test your findings. The more positive you are that you aren't making mistakes that are causing the issue, the better (if not for testing purposes, than for your game play!)
4) Befriend a PG! We don't have a super-awesome inside connection or anything, but we can discuss findings from different metas and present issues and feedback from the player base. Heck, if you have specific feedback, IM me, I'll look into testing anything Khador you send
5) Be Patient! It's not that PP is glacial in their changes, but, well, it takes time and effort to get a change made. Even if we make a compelling argument for why something should be changed, it's going to lead to even more playtesting at PP, and if they find a change they like, it may go back to the PG's for playtesting. And eventually, if they decide to move on the issue, it still means getting it into the FAQ, which only happens a couple of times a year.
PS: I'd agree that the Kossites have an exceptionally weak statline, but that doesn't make my Menoth opponents feel any better when I'm destroying their soft and squishy support models from behind
Ok This is data from Templecon which Jamie P won. There are a few things to keep in mind when analyzing this data. The Tournament winner was Khador so when it delves into statistics regarding Khador's top 25% of players you will be seeing a small artificial bump in the races average efficacy and that everyone Jamie beat will see a small artificial decrease. Minions stats are anomalous given their low sample sizes and nobody could do better than a ~8 percent margin of error. I will use my almighty military intelligence analysm skillz to give you the TL:dr
Khador was the second most played army from this tournament. Cryx was first. Circle, Cygnar and Legion all tied for third 1 player behind Khador.
When you separate performance between the Top 25 % vs. the Bottom 75 % Khador's Win rate does something very odd. Khador's wins excluding players from the top 25% of the bracket plummets to about 33-34% second worst in the entire game after Cygnar. (we all know Cygnar is having a hard time) When you include statistics from the top 25% of players however on their own we have a win rate over 80%. The Difference between an average vs. an elite Khador player in this tournament being over 50%
If you exclude Minions Khador represents some of the best high level play in the game....We also represent some of the worst average gameplay.
I'd dearly love for us to see some more of these articles. Trending one way or the other would be remarkably insightful.
This article fragile as it may be is the source of my comments. It is confirmed by hearsay in many places around the internet. Cryx performs better than average accross the board but is easily counterable by other armies given the effort. Ditto Legion. Cygnar doesn't perform as well. And specifically in this collection of threads you will see a lot of people complaining about a lack of performance and a few lofty opinions that Khador performs between just fine. IF you liken these opinions to the Proletariat and Bourgeoisie specifically in conjuction to their relationship in the performance statistic both opinions make a remarkable amount of sense.
This is data from an elimination tournament.... it is going to be remarkably flawed. I would need data from an exceptionally large player pool over an extended amount of games to do anything but give you the L33t statistics version.
Khador also had the second largest number of players in the top 25% but neither a ratio or number were given so estimating how much of Khador's total population was in the top 25% of achievers would be difficult. It also doesn't list army composition. One possible way to interpret this is that talented players who had strictly competitive lists performed extremely well. Those who did not play with those lists did exceptionally poorly. IF this is true and you take Winterguard/Kayazy/IFP from our faction with releases dedicated to their demise it means very very bad things for the faction.
Last edited by Trihnicus; 06-12-2012 at 05:36 PM.
Also take a look at focus and fury forums, there is a thread in there about these stats as well.
Hearsay is not confirmation. One could argue that the analysis of this single event could confirm hearsay, but it would be an exceptionally weak position as the event does not represent a statistically meaningful sampling. It is just a begining. I think the more statistically realistic article is the one in which he compares the probability of winning at Temple Con to winning at the Mayhem Cup. Outside of that analysis, this just isn't statistically meaningful.It is confirmed by hearsay in many places around the internet.
This actually ties back to a rather widely accepted truth: Cryx is a very forgiving faction to play. When two players of limited experience sit down to play, it the favor typically leans towards Cryx. But when you have two highly skilled players competing, that forgivness is less of a factor as fewer mistakes are made. I would expect to see this trend continue as more data is gathered; Cryx will have a lower likelihood of being in the bottom 25%, but will have no higher likelihood of being in the top 25%.Cryx performs better than average accross the board but is easily counterable by other armies given the effort.
I've been watching a few games that a new Khador player has suffered through. He's at that second stage where he's learning the combo's and thinking is he has every 'trick' and upkeep going at once then he'll win. So he'll have Sentry (on a Spriggan!) ,mess up his order of activation, block his own charge lanes, massively and often fruitlessly over commit to deal with a non threat etc etc. Then he gets stomped even though in his mind he's doing everything right. Last game he let Molik Karn live, (intentionally to block a charge from a Gladiator to his Spriggan) and of course Karn charged and side stepped to his Caster.
I think to be a good Khador player you have to spend twice as much time reading the Prime main rules, and give more thought to spacing and positioning then other factions. A 'brilliant' play for us is often the dynamics of a unit's formation rather then remembering some dirty trick we stole from the forums. This finesse can't be explained over the forums though. You've got to play lots, lose lots, and double check the rules. It's not as easy as telling a retribution player to park his MHSF behind an obstruction or a Cryx player to double TK so that you get +4" movement and back strikes. I think the tricksiness of other factions can eliminate many low and medium skilled players from these tournaments, but pay diminishing returns against seasoned veterans.
Last edited by thrasymacus; 06-12-2012 at 05:48 PM.
Khador 326pts 57% painted
Mercs 48pts 56% painted
Cryx 26pts 137pts 16% painted
Things like Cryx being a forgiving faction are -Exactly- what I mean by hearsay. IF 80 people out of a 100 say the Browns suck and these opinions have little weight at all due to little actual proof and Tournament results are released implying that the Browns suck both lend credence to eachother. Imperialistically this is a false positive but It adds far more weight to my hypothesis than it does to the opposition.
And Cryx is #1 in the top 25% representation but it also has the largest population. I'm assuming population % and top 25% are going to see a positive correlation but Cryx being more forgiving seems to be positively correlating it's comparative population AND it's 25% finishes.
Hearsay isn't always wrong. But it's not going to get PP to change the game. And in the case of Cryx, it doesn't even help identify shortcomings, because people miss the mistakes they make as we are less critical of ourselves when we win.
/blink I had not gone as far as tried to construct an opinion that I thought would be so convincing as to change the balance of the game once light had dawned from it on the faces of all who read. The idea of attempting such in a position that doesn't come with a salary or financial backing that gives one the freedom to do so is a little ridiculous.
I could spend years of time trying to "prove" that Cygnar isn't as effective as Cryx and fail. I would be far more likely to change the game with force of personality than I would to beat many of the members here in a numbers game decisively.
Lacking additional input I'm holding to the strongest posited theory. Which is that you see whining from an exceptionally large proportion of the forum because that for a similarly sized selection of the player base Khador is unwieldy and ineffective IE they do not win. This is in direct response to the posters question of "why are people negative is it really that bad" and in direct disputation of "It's a select few forum nerds crying about the toys they don't play with" and additive to "Ignore it Khador is fine and performs very well". Trying to win PP's support wasn't ever an objective.
Well said Trihnicus. If we are going to casually dismiss the people who say "Khador is the Suxorz!" then we should just as easily ignore the people who's only contribution is "Khador is awesome and YOU are the Suxorz!". The first is trying to assuage his hurt ego, the second trying to boost it.
Khador 326pts 57% painted
Mercs 48pts 56% painted
Cryx 26pts 137pts 16% painted
To be honest, I agree with points on both sides of this discussion, and, looking back, it's weird that it reads like two opposing viewpoints while I can agree with what both people are saying without feeling like I'm believing in contradictions too much. It seems to be a matter of scope.
On a level of what one person is doing, it is most productive to analyze your personal mistakes, both made during the game and before. This means that you should take a detailed look at what models you took and how they performed. When discussing these issues on the forums, keeping your comments specific and positive (while simultaneously pointing out flaws in models/strategies/combos and/or discussing what was successful and what worked) is a good idea to get positive feedback in return, instead of simply, "Khador doesn't suck, YOU suck!" or "If Khador was so awesome, how come we aren't a 100% win record? Lolzfail." or even "Whatever, we're gonna make jokes about bears with beards instead of staying on topic."
Conversely, analyzing the data on a higher level, we see that players without enough skills to pay any sort of bills will fail, to a much greater degree than someone with another "more forgiving" faction. People see Khador win and they want to win with it, but don't understand why taking the list that won doesn't auto-win itself. It's already been pointed out by others that this army requires an unthematic level of finesse to win with. We'll keep hearing about how awesome a faction is by those devout people who have really learned the ins and outs of it and then picking it up and playing it, and going, "*** my pSorscha jack-heavy list is losing to my opponent's pDenny list every ****ing game!" Even getting the right models, it's obvious to my limited playing (having only started a month and a half ago) that in this faction it's much more important to gain a thorough understanding of the capabilities and uses of each model in your army before the skill to use it will come.
For an example, I've been playing Great Bears, and I can tell how better players than me are always able to kill them before they get enough use out of the list, even the usefulness of making my opponent commit large enough resources to kill them. But if my opponent underestimates their survivability, or I get the charge off, or I position them in the right spot to tarpit/threaten a unit that's JUST weak enough to let them do their job but strong enough to make their points back, I know how useful they are. I've played a few games with IFP, and I can see their raw power (especially with any given buff), I can see some of their usefulness and versatility, but I have a very long way to go before I consider myself truly proficient with them. And instead of just getting used to an army/faction's THEME or special re-occuring rule or general playstyle, it's like every single model and unit of ours has to be learned at a much steeper curve to its own efficiency.
After I analyze my own mistakes and my playstyle, I become better. Fact of gaming (and some would argue life). However, with the steep learning curve of Khador, until I master the entire faction (or at least every model in 2 or 3 different 50-point lists), I am at a disadvantage over the person who picks up a faction with a smaller learning curve (such as the easily-referenced Cryx). If I want to win fast, this is a problem, and I go to the forums and complain or I just sell my models and either switch factions or quit. If I want to become a better player and win more consistently down the road, I analyze, learn, and grow.
Of course, as I have not started this game from another faction's viewpoint, this could all be speculation on my part. So it goes.
Last edited by profparm; 06-12-2012 at 09:35 PM.
In Cygnar, you duel with your words.
In Khador, we duel with our swords.
Those stats are fascinating! I wish I'd known about them before. It does seem that Khador is unforgiving at lower levels of play, although I'd hesitate to give that much weight as I have no idea what constitutes 'low-level' at Templecon!
Whilst the Khador numbers have been thoroughly dissected already, something caught my eye: Menoth and Trollbloods have the second and third highest 'bottom 75%' result, but then are pretty much dead last when the top 25% are added. Maybe I'm jumping to conclusions, but that seems to imply that the support-stacking game doesn't translate well to the highest play levels.
Alles brennt, wenn die flamme nur heiss genug ist. Die Welt is nichts als ein schmelztiegel
Ambush! - Kills by Kossites: The Witch Coven, Kara Sloane
I see a lot of newer players trying to play a couple different factions just a little bit at a time, and you really won't perform well in khador if that is your plan. It takes a lot of finesse to really wallop people with Khador, and it still won't be easy.
This means multiple things, such as knowing what your own models can do, which models will threaten an opponent so much he won't ignore the bait, and which models to minimize until you strike. Not to mention placement of everything in Khador has to be next to perfect. We don't have near the flexibility that some of the other factions have which plenty of people have mentioned. Next you need to be able to eyeball distances. Sure you can check control, but you won't always have the straight lineup of caster and a models charge range, but tricks like that will also need to be used.
Now you can come and read these forums and get a good idea of a lot of this stuff, but it isn't practical application. A lot of people come here to theory machine, while only a few people people seem to post from experience, and there is a big difference there. You need to play this game to learn it. You can read the forums all day, every day, but at a certain point it won't make you any better if you are playing one game a month. I suggest vassal strongly to anyone who can't get in multiple games a week to practice. For some people that may take the fun out of it, but being competitive is what makes it fun for me.
"Adding in info from L&L and Origins stats:
Total WM Top 5 Placements 104
Total Hordes Top 5 Placements 88
Total WM 1st Place 32
Total Hordes 1st Place 24
Total WM 2nd Place 28
Total Hordes 2nd Place 24
Total WM 3rd Place 23
Total Hordes 3rd Place 25
Total WM 4th Place 12
Total Hordes 4th Place 8
Total WM 5th Place 9
Total Hordes 5th Place 7
Taken from the F and F boards
Scott is right ^...^ I brought those stats up because they helped reinforce a point not because they can prove anything. An Elimination Tournament destroys statistical relevancy in small samples. The only team I would take that sample size as a good indicator of is Cryx because at 30 players it's margin of error is not giggle inspiring.
Something like 100 players would be needed to be a good indicator and 1000 would probably be acceptable.
Last edited by Trihnicus; 06-13-2012 at 02:31 PM.
Or you can use the statistics within themselves. For instance, if we track all of the results from the Mayhem Cup series, we can make statistically assumptions based on that specific sample. But the resulting analysis would only apply to the Mayhem Cup. You could infer global value from it, but such statements would not be statistically backed. If you look at the follow up report on Muse, where the author compares the probability of success from one event to another is an excellent example of how to use statistics based on a limited sample correctly.
You either play as an innovator or you play as a whiner. You can either be the person who says that bombardiers suck and takes them only as a handicap if that, or you can decide to be the person who makes bombardiers work and make it happen through trial and error. Personally, I played through hell of losses before I managed to get Zerkova to work for me. I STILL can't run an effective Strakhov list, but every few games, I dust him off and try something new. Saying that something cannot be done is admitting defeat. And if you aren't being challenged, why play?
I have a new found respect for Septimus.
There is no need to smash your head into a wall, to be an innovator. This is a weird desire to be different then everyone else which puzzles me.
We know things work, playing them isn't a bad thing. We know some things don't work, and you can avoid them. Use the work of others to bolster your own knowledge
No Pity for the Majority
I remember an old Skorne player, back in the day, who complained constantly that PP favored Cryx, Khador, anyone other than Skorne. He constantly lost and blamed his bad luck with the dice and his faction being weak as the reason. Later on, my brother decided to try Skorne, and proceeded to wipe the floor with them as a faction....
When it comes down to it, Some people will redirect their failings elsewhere. Other people will adapt...
As far as Khador goes, I love my faction, and think that it does well. Their are certain things that I won't run, only because they don't fit my playstyle, or aren't fun for me. I don't necessarily think that they are bad because of that. Just not my style.
Not sure about the dislike on conquest that some people have mentioned, haven't looked at his stats...I'm wondering how well he would work with E. Butcher and rage tokens though (plus Butcher's benefits to jacks for killing someone).
Last edited by wulfwyn; 06-13-2012 at 09:29 PM.
He doesn't work WITH Ebutchers rage tokens at all (special rule) but he can generate them to some degree.
And I'd like to add another point of view to the whole discussion: I guess most of us play most of our games locally. But comparing your mostly local experience with your local meta to the general situation leads to a lot of wrong estimations about any faction.
So you run the SPD 6 jack into melee with something and when you feat you buy, boost and boost? Seems like a solid use.
Press Ganger for the North Denver Metro Area.
Head Warmachine/Hordes Organizer for Feast of Blades.