Switch Theme:

Tournament Results Does Not Equal Power Level of Codex  [RSS] Share on facebook Share on Twitter Submit to Reddit
»
Author Message
Advert


Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:
  • No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
  • Times and dates in your local timezone.
  • Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
  • Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
  • Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.
If you are already a member then feel free to login now.




Made in us
Loyal Necron Lychguard





Well no, because if something that seems busted on paper fails to get any results in high level play then your analysis was probably off for some reason. The easy example of this is the 8th CSM codex, which is filled to the brim with powerful combos that seemed like they'd be oppressive at first but soon proved too difficult to pull off consistently as the book got inconsistent results.
   
Made in au
Dakka Veteran





 Arachnofiend wrote:
Well no, because if something that seems busted on paper fails to get any results in high level play then your analysis was probably off for some reason.

Sorry man - but this is complete an utter nonsense. You are objectively wrong on that.



But this mistaken belief is the crux of this whole thing. E.G. People said Tau were weak for a year straight because of the "stats", until Sieglar came out the woodworks with the very same units the groupthink and the stats both said were low tier, and won NOVA, kept dominating all year, and a bunch of people copied his playstyle and completely changed Tau's performance for the rest of the edition. He wasn't a big name player then either, until he did this and he was. He used critical analysis, decided the groupthink was wrong, and then went out and became extremely successful with his playstyle. And before he did it you know what people said about Tau? "Your analysis is wrong, the stats say otherwise!".

This is an excellent example of how stats can leave you completely blinded to the reality of the game. You are literally blind to everything good right now that might not be being played for about an infinite number of human reasons, and not because it isn't strong.

This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2021/07/24 09:00:45


 
   
Made in ca
Longtime Dakkanaut




 Nitro Zeus wrote:
 Arachnofiend wrote:
Well no, because if something that seems busted on paper fails to get any results in high level play then your analysis was probably off for some reason.

Sorry man - but this is complete an utter nonsense. You are objectively wrong on that.



But this mistaken belief is the crux of this whole thing. E.G. People said Tau were weak for a year straight because of the "stats", until Sieglar came out the woodworks with the very same units the groupthink and the stats both said were low tier, and won NOVA, kept dominating all year, and a bunch of people copied his playstyle and completely changed Tau's performance for the rest of the edition. He wasn't a big name player then either, until he did this and he was. He used critical analysis, decided the groupthink was wrong, and then went out and became extremely successful with his playstyle. And before he did it you know what people said about Tau? "Your analysis is wrong, the stats say otherwise!".

This is an excellent example of how stats can leave you completely blinded to the reality of the game. You are literally blind to everything good right now that might not be being played for about an infinite number of human reasons, and not because it isn't strong.


To be fair, stats isn't wrong per se -- it's only as good as the data. Garbage in, garbage out.

If a faction is underperforming because people aren't experimenting with it due to group think, and good players aren't playing the faction just cause, this sort of thing will happen.

But it is incorrect to say stat analysis is misguided. You just need compelling reasons to think the data is (roughly) unbiased and reflective of army strength.
   
Made in us
Loyal Necron Lychguard





You really think no one has ever overrated a faction huh
   
Made in au
Dakka Veteran





It’s incredible that I wrote what I did, and you somehow got that from it.
   
Made in gb
Longtime Dakkanaut




 Nitro Zeus wrote:
 Arachnofiend wrote:
Well no, because if something that seems busted on paper fails to get any results in high level play then your analysis was probably off for some reason.

Sorry man - but this is complete an utter nonsense. You are objectively wrong on that.


No he isn't. He said "probably", not definitely. There have been plenty of things that have been theorised to be busted when a Codex is released that simply haven't panned out. Most recently Deathwing's always-on Transhuman springs to mind. Plenty of people were concerned about that, especially combined with the DA secondary that seemed too easy. Turns out DA are strong but not sweeping all before them, even before DE and AdMech came out. Obviously this isn't the case all the time and there will likely be disagreement about what constitutes a proper analysis but it's absurd to say it's an objectively wrong statement. For that to be true nobody could ever have misidentified a unit or combo as being overpowered ever. Now that's absurd.


 Nitro Zeus wrote:
[
But this mistaken belief is the crux of this whole thing. E.G. People said Tau were weak for a year straight because of the "stats", until Sieglar came out the woodworks with the very same units the groupthink and the stats both said were low tier, and won NOVA, kept dominating all year, and a bunch of people copied his playstyle and completely changed Tau's performance for the rest of the edition. He wasn't a big name player then either, until he did this and he was. He used critical analysis, decided the groupthink was wrong, and then went out and became extremely successful with his playstyle. And before he did it you know what people said about Tau? "Your analysis is wrong, the stats say otherwise!".

This is an excellent example of how stats can leave you completely blinded to the reality of the game. You are literally blind to everything good right now that might not be being played for about an infinite number of human reasons, and not because it isn't strong.


There's certainly an issue with using tournament data exclusively because it's very self-selecting. However, for every case like Tau, where someone finds a way to make them work, there are armies like GSC or Knights where tournament data shows they're bad and the reality completely agrees with that conclusion. One example doesn't disprove every other example, it simply shows we can't always take tournament data for granted.

It's also amusing you point out how Siegler changed how people looked at Tau, dominated with them...then of course he switched to Iron Hands for the LVO because what's most important in increasing your chances of winning is playing the most busted thing ever, not showing your amazingly honed skill with the underdog faction.
   
Made in us
Loyal Necron Lychguard





Tournament play is where you figure out if your theorycraft works out in practice. Dismissing tournament results entirely is the same as saying the scientific method ends at "establish a hypothesis". No need to test this out in a real setting, the math can't be wrong!
   
Made in us
Mysterious Techpriest






 Nitro Zeus wrote:
It’s incredible that I wrote what I did, and you somehow got that from it.


I have been there before! I am of the opinion that tournament results are the least important part of the equation to figuring out what is powerful. You have to analyze the top lists to check for repetition of certain units, figure out secondaries, check to see which army gave the guy in 8th place his one loss there are so many things that are much more vital to the success of players who constantly win than the selection of codex. If you think the most important step is picking a codex you are wrong.

Nobody is as powerful as we make them out to be.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/07/24 20:43:27


   
Made in us
Confessor Of Sins




 CKO wrote:
 Nitro Zeus wrote:
It’s incredible that I wrote what I did, and you somehow got that from it.


I have been there before! I am of the opinion that tournament results are the least important part of the equation to figuring out what is powerful. You have to analyze the top lists to check for repetition of certain units, figure out secondaries, check to see which army gave the guy in 8th place his one loss there are so many things that are much more vital to the success of players who constantly win than the selection of codex. If you think the most important step is picking a codex you are wrong.

Nobody is as powerful as we make them out to be.


So you think tournament results are the least important part of the equation...but everything you describe is a tournament result.

Now maybe you meant 'who wins the tournament is the least important part' but that's actually a straw man. "Tournament results" covers everything that happens in a tournament and the only time experienced players put heavy emphasis on the winning army, is if the same faction wins multiple events ala Admech dominating EVERYTHING for the past month or so.

In a single event it's as much luck as anything how the top 8 shake out(amongst themselves).

2500pts
2500
3000


 
   
Made in no
Rogue Grot Kannon Gunna






Broken interactions and strong codex works on all levels. So If the top table are switching to Mech, SoB and DE, there reason is that it gives them a better edge to win ON THE TOP TABLES.

If me, an average player, would switch to one of the 3 above, it would give me a greater edge vs players of my same statue.

So I believe a broken codex give you an extra mileage that is still limited by your skills as a player.

Example in practice: I have been playing only competitive events with nothing but orks since the start of 8th. When IH came i managed to snatch a 4th place at a GT in Januari, at the height of TFC and Centurions, with orks. My buddy that also played orks competitively, way longer than me, decide at the last minute to get salty and loan the eldar flyer spam list with 8 flyers. He ended up last.
   
 
Forum Index » 40K Tactics
Go to: