the Chaos is OP myth

[Eclipse]

Stats on win rate and popularity massively over simplify the issue of balance. They're not useful in any non-negligible way.

I don't think I'm understanding you correctly. It is your assertion that there is either no, or negligible correlation between whether a race wins and whether or not it is balanced? If this is the case, then I understand why you asked for a definition of whether or not a race is overpowered or not, because if the ability of one race to beat or win against another race has no relevance to its overpoweredness, then I've got nothing. I was assuming from the plain language of the terms that a race's overpoweredness was directly related to its ability to overpower another race. If on the other hand you're simply saying that the particular stats currently collected do not accurately represent the community we wish to balance for, then see my response infra regarding stat collection.

Races with more players likely have more developed metas and perform better at super high level but worse at low-level where the low-levels players all flock to that race for whatever reason external to balance.
Then you have the issue of some heroes just being easier to play a near-optimum skill level but not that great at such a level. Whereas other heroes will really slaughter everything at a near-optimum skill level but are just far harder to use at such a skill level. If we aim for top-down balance this second problem basically makes the win ratio/popularity statistics pretty useless on their own.

Great, maybe we should collect statistics from the levels that we wish to balance for, like I suggested in the following post:

the statistics are...Useful...Because: they accurately reflect the nature of the heroes, races, and maps, in the manner most relevant to the Elite community, whether based only on tournament matches in order to minimize people playing FC for the first time skewing the results; or the entire community since the latest patch to maximize sample size; or in an alternative manner deemed most relevant by the Elite community.

Another problem is that using stats from past games assumes that incumbent and previous metas
=were close to identifying the optimal performance of each of the heroes and builds they can accommodate. I see little reason why this would be the case.

This is yet another statistics issue, and the field present a veritable array of theories on how to deal with moving trends from simple moving averages to the GLICKO-1 system mentioned on the same page that has these stats in the first place.

[Eclipse]

Might we pause for a moment? I do not wish to engage in hostile discussion as my first introduction to the community. Are people really saying that whether a race wins is not relevant to whether or not that race is overpowered, or am I misunderstanding what you're saying?

If we took 10 million hypothetical matches of all formats and all maps, between Caeltos, Lulgrim, hakon, Wise Windu, Indrid, Nurland, etc. with every single combination of hero, map, and format possible; if there was one hero who won every single match they participated in, we would say that has zero or negligible impact on whether we think that hero is "OP"? If people can just say yes to this question, I will simply concede the point, though I do not understand it.

I think then, that there can be no objective criteria for determining OPness. It all boils down to "y'arh, I like punch noisy tank w/ power fist, but too loud!". I respectfully withdraw all comments and suggestions from consideration.

[Ven]

what we mean by OP, and what is usually considered as OP is the races units and how its played. not the win-rate/ playerbases opinion on a commander.

these stats are basically like comparing different cereals. just because khorne flakes was voted to be popular by 10% of people, does it mean its healthy? thats what your logic sounds like. it sounds like you're basing an opinion of if something is OP, off of stats of peoples favorite heros. it makes no sense. its like saying "khorne flakes are the most popular. thus they are the healthiest of the cereals available" there is no connection there.

neither me, torpid or gorrila are being aggressive here. we're just baffled at your logic.

[Eclipse]

Is your answer to my hypothetical games "yes"? Because if it is, I think I will not be capable of understanding your analogy, and will cease here. Alternatively, I will attempt to explain why your analogy does not accurately reflect the circumstances of my proposition.

EDIT: In the meantime while I await your answer, I shall attempt to explain to the best of my abilities why your analogy is wrong. If your answer is in fact "yes" that invalidates premise 1, so you can ignore everything below this line.

Using popularity and win ratio for a particular race to determine that race's relative power is not like using the popularity of cereal to determine its health value, because health is not a child element of popularity. modus tollens Proof follows, but, I just want to state in plain English that it would be more like if we were trying to determine a cereal's healthiness by looking to see whether people who eat that particular cereal are healthier than others, and the greater number of individuals that eat them, the greater the confidence we have, the less spurious we think the correlation to be.
1. A race that is overpowered has a positive likelihood of superiority with respect to a race that is not overpowered. (Premised on your answer to my hypo)
2. A race that has both more games and a higher win ratio has a positive likelihood of superiority with respect to a race that has less games and less wins [LOS formula] (See e.g. https://chessprogramming.wikispaces.com ... Statistics)
3. A race that has both more games and a higher win ratio is overpowered with respect to a race that has less games and a lower win ratio. [1,2, and Modus ponens]

what we mean by OP, and what is usually considered as OP is the races units and how its played. not the win-rate/ playerbases opinion on a commander.

these stats are basically like comparing different cereals. just because khorne flakes was voted to be popular by 10% of people, does it mean its healthy? thats what your logic sounds like. it sounds like you're basing an opinion of if something is OP, off of stats of peoples favorite heros. it makes no sense. its like saying "khorne flakes are the most popular. thus they are the healthiest of the cereals available" there is no connection there.

neither me, torpid or gorrila are being aggressive here. we're just baffled at your logic.

[Torpid]

There would be a correlation between win rate and popularity and tendency of something to be OP, sure. However that is not the only factor that can influence win rate/popularity ratios, so alone they're not sufficient to draw many conclusions from, at least with a sample size and skill-level size and arguably terrible meta-basis that we have had to draw statistics from so far.

[Cheah18]

Going back to those numbers it is reasonable to infer that the higher the win % the more favourably (to that race) unbalanced the race is. Lictor has like 8% popularity and then like 70% win... that doesn't account for enough practise as Lictor to give that high a win percentage assuming balance. The same can be said for Chaos Lord to a lesser extent.

[BaptismByLoli]

Jingle bells, jingle bells, jingle all the way.

Oh, what fun it is to ride
In a one horse open sleigh
Hey!

Anywho, my definition of OP is that there are no counters for it and/or gives you little time for one to react/counterplay. Cooldown/Pricing/Hard Capping of said ability/technique/unit also comes into play.

Basically, if I can't see a way through it, I call BS.

[Eclipse]

What if there were some unstoppably powerful unit with no counterplay that always caused you to lose if you built it? Idk say it makes you hemmorage 50 VP a second or destroys your HQ so you can never build more units or reinforce or fall back? Would you say that is op?

[Eclipse]

at least with a sample size and skill-level size and arguably terrible meta-basis that we have had to draw statistics from so far.

I am pretty sure this is what I have been saying since the beginning.

[Torpid]

Anywho, my definition of OP is that there are no counters for it and/or gives you little time for one to react/counterplay. Cooldown/Pricing/Hard Capping of said ability/technique/unit also comes into play.

Basically, if I can't see a way through it, I call BS.

You can't counter it, or the hypothetical perfect player couldn't counter it? If neither, what?

Does the pre-requisite micro needed to make such a unit combination uncounterable weigh into how OP it is? Are rangers brokenly OP because they synergise so well with eldar avenger's and their grenades?

Why are you so important? Why should something be OP if you can't beat it. Maybe you just suck and so on and so on...

[BaptismByLoli]

@Eclipse
I'm confused. Are saying a 'I win button/unit? If so I also take other things into account as well. Clearly a, 'I win button/unit' is OP regardless of the circumstances.


@Torpid
The key phrase is 'my definition'. If I was important I'd be typing 'the definition' and heavily highlighting it instead while also scolding all of you for getting the definition of, 'OP' wrong. If micro and timing are heavily tied together to execute said combo than I'm okay with it.

Calm down man . I didn't know something like that can appear so insulting.

[Torpid]

If you speak your own language then why do you post on the forums at all?

We need absolute definitions if we are to discuss any of these things. If this is merely how you define it and not how others ought to define it then why post it?

I'm not trying to be offensive here or in the last post, merely highlighting the problems in such contributions to this thread

[Torpid]

at least with a sample size and skill-level size and arguably terrible meta-basis that we have had to draw statistics from so far.

I am pretty sure this is what I have been saying since the beginning.

Haha you're right then. However I think the initial hostility comes from the fact that we won't at this point realistically ever have a sample size (add in other relevant statistical issues) good enough to warrant inferring conclusions about balance from them.

In principle it's possible yes, but in practice, not really and I think that's why everyone sort of jumped up and has a spasm at the prospect of using them in practice as such right now.

[BaptismByLoli]

@Torpid

My derp then

[Eclipse]

at least with a sample size and skill-level size and arguably terrible meta-basis that we have had to draw statistics from so far.

I am pretty sure this is what I have been saying since the beginning.

Haha you're right then. However I think the initial hostility comes from the fact that we won't at this point realistically ever have a sample size (add in other relevant statistical issues) good enough to warrant inferring conclusions about balance from them.

In principle it's possible yes, but in practice, not really and I think that's why everyone sort of jumped up and has a spasm at the prospect of using them in practice as such right now.

More than a little bit of my frustration stemmed from people stating one of the points I had made, but in language that makes it sounds disagreeing.

@Eclipse
I'm confused. Are saying a 'I win button/unit? If so I also take other things into account as well. Clearly a, 'I win button/unit' is OP regardless of the circumstances.

I was asking if your no counterplay definition factored in your ability to win. If there was a particuar unit that was unbeatable and has no counterplay, let's give Autarch 5k armor_piercing_pvp dps, building armor, 10k health and 1k hps regen. If this unit has some crippling drawback that would guarantee you lose as soon as it was summoned, would that balance it out in your mind? Like what if it restores 2k VP to your opponents and makes you lose 50 VP per second even if she dies or Skyleaps. How does a unit's ability to secure a win factor at all into your definition?

Just for giggles, let's give her Avatar Aura, Reinforcement Aura, Reflective Chitin, Speed Synapse, Basic Synapse, Regeneration Synapse, Melee Synapse, Ranged Synapse, Damage Synapse, Improved Synapse, the ability to cap at 1.5x speed of other units, Demolisher Cannon, Baneblade Cannon, Purified Blades, Waaagh! Banner Aura, Demoralize, Daemonic, Great Unclean One Aura, Plague Marine Aura, Plague Marine Explosion (unlikely she'd get the chance to use it), Worship (Khorne+Nurgle+Tzeentch), Healing Aura, Repair Aura, Time Field, Warp Throw, Infiltrate, whatever that ability was called that respawned you when you died in retail (Apothecary & Ravener Alpha I think), and anything else we can think of.

[BaptismByLoli]

So basically a 'I win' unit?

[Torpid]

So basically a 'I win' unit?

No discreet, a 'I lose' button, yet still an uncounterable unit. I think you're missing the point :S

[Eclipse]

No ... a 'I lose' button, yet still an uncounterable unit.

This

[Atlas]

This discussion has become so meta it's almost pointless

[Ven]

well cornholio is obviously not responding so this discussion has just kinda.. span out of control. this kinda thing happens when someone posts something, then goes to the moon or something. the OP really needs to be here to add to the discussion. its kinda how forums work. or they become 4chan.

[Lichtbringer]

Exactly^^ It is very ironical to see someone complain about the very thing he, himself does by complaining about it.

But I actually find the disscusion of what we define as OP to be interesting.
I see it like this: Skill vs Skill. If one faction can reliably beat another faction, while played by the theoretical same person who invest the same in both those factions, then it is OP at that Skilllevel. (on that map, and against that other faction).

Also, at the same time, a Faction that always wins against another Faction, when both are played by theoretical perfect players is OP. (against that other faction on that map).

Now we already notice that maps are very important. So we don't only need balanced factions, but also balanced maps.

But is the question whats OP really the important question?
So, let me get at another, in my opinion way more important point here. It seems to me clear that it is impossible to balance the game for everything. So we as a community have to ask ourselves, what is it we want to balance for?
My simple answer would be: Balance the game for the best players we have here right now, so that they can have close and tense matches, that are also fun to watch. On the other hand try to iron out problems of "ease to execute"/"annoying things for noobs" so that while the lower level players should always try to become better, they can still have fun while doing so.

Depending on what the best players want, we could also balance it in a way that expects everyone to play perfect. From my selfish view, the fun in spectating those games would go down, but because I am not playing them, balance them however those players see fit.

In the end (for) its all about being practical, and giving as many people as possible competetiv/balanced AND fun experience. And still, if most players feal different, than lets do it differently. Or even if just Caeltos feels different, he can do it the way he sees to be the best. For example, if the community/the top players/caeltos wants the balance to be always be determinied by the theoretical perfect player, thats fine for me, I see the value in it. It may be just not the perfect Solution for me.

Maybe I did get a bit offtopic... hmm.


So to come back to something being OP, is what "OPness" we have to allow, and what "OPness" we don't want. Or lets say, there are many definitions of OP, that are all true, but some of them are maybe more important to the community?


----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

And just out of interest, independend of everything I said before.

No ... a 'I lose' button, yet still an uncounterable unit.

This

Wouldn't the counter to that unit be to just wait, and therefore win the game?^^

[Eclipse]

The point of that was to show that winning is everything. If a unit is some unstoppable juggernaut but has no contribution to you winning then it's not OP. The only real way to illustrate that is by something that is very powerful but restores VP to your opponent and drains yours at a rate that makes it mathematically impossible to win even if you're triple capped for the remainder of the game.

Mostly it was me just being bitter from earlier about people telling me that whether or not something wins has no relation to its OPness.

[Torpid]

The point of that was to show that winning is everything. If a unit is some unstoppable juggernaut but has no contribution to you winning then it's not OP. The only real way to illustrate that is by something that is very powerful but restores VP to your opponent and drains yours at a rate that makes it mathematically impossible to win even if you're triple capped for the remainder of the game.

Mostly it was me just being bitter from earlier about people telling me that whether or not something wins has no relation to its OPness.

The difference though is that statistics about which hero wins most often or which race wins most often don't directly imply that it is the hero/race that is making the difference in win ratio. This is different from a unit that is blatantly not OP because it is blatantly obvious that if you buy this unit you will lose.

Winning is all that matters of course with regards to the OPness of a unit, but statistics don't show the extent to which unit X contributes to someone winning that well. Also there are many different types of ways of contributing winning some of which should be weighted stronger than others...

[Eclipse]

The difference though is that statistics about which hero wins most often or which race wins most often don't directly imply that it is the hero/race that is making the difference in win ratio. This is different from a unit that is blatantly not OP because it is blatantly obvious that if you buy this unit you will lose.

I don't understand these words, I'm not being facetious, I just don't understand what you're saying.

Winning is all that matters of course with regards to the OPness of a unit, but statistics don't show the extent to which unit X contributes to someone winning that well. Also there are many different types of ways of contributing winning some of which should be weighted stronger than others...

I thought we already established that I agree that those particular statistics are more prejudicial than probative. However, I do not agree that statistics generally are per se incapable of showing the OPness of a particular race, and neither do you if you answered no to my hypothetical games. If you answered yes then you should just have said so because I agreed to concede the entire thread.

[Nurland]

OK... This thread is going nowhere is not productive or helpful so I will lock it.