the Chaos is OP myth

[The great Cornholio]

iam not sure if this is the right place 2 post this but anyway.. 2 things i hear all the time... The word noob ( a word that has lost all meaning ) , and ohh chaos is soooo OP.

And yes , chaos was OP back in retail.. but thats the point of elite mod. balance.
people just forget all the great stuff the other armies have. i think space marines are better than chaos in most situations.

force commander has that awsome shield in t1... that is great even in t3 ( dont forget the powerfist )
apo passive heal that works on allies
techmarine best hero in 3v3..

and those banshees with super ninja speed heavy melee.

soo maybe people can give me a decent reason why chaos is op? and not just because they lost 2 chaos..

[Ven]

chaos is not OP, no faction in its entirety is OP. if someone says a FACTION is OP then they're not dealing with it right.

if someone says a unit, or upgrade etc is OP, then they might have a point depending on the unit.

im not sure what else to say, this isnt much of a discussion really as the question is answered in one line, which was the first line of text i typed in this post. at the end of the day, it comes down to the players and that players playstyle, and how the opponent deals with it.

also, i think this is more of a general discussion thing rather than a balance discussion thing, as its not really a balance discussion if there isnt a basis given as to why a poster things something is OP, in your case; chaos in its entirety, which i will say again; is not.

[Cheah18]

I consciously believe chaos is not OP. However, there are things which have made me think hmmm is this in combination with other things just too cheap? Just made me curious though not enough to make me think they are OP.

Havoc insta suppress, Tcsm dps, sorc worship abuse (making GuO infiltrate? hmmm...), phobos damage vs single entities ie. heroes and squads, the Tdread missile launcher (which, imo, certainly IS imba atm), Noise marine damage given their ability to negate range.

ftr Slaughter is broken atm.

I have concluded that chaos's 'noob-friendliness' and cheapness has given the illusion they are OP among non-pr0s

[Ven]

I consciously believe chaos is not OP. However, there are things which have made me think hmmm is this in combination with other things just too cheap? Just made me curious though not enough to make me think they are OP.

Havoc insta suppress, Tcsm dps, sorc worship abuse (making GuO infiltrate? hmmm...), phobos damage vs single entities ie. heroes and squads, the Tdread missile launcher (which, imo, certainly IS imba atm), Noise marine damage given their ability to negate range.

ftr Slaughter is broken atm.

I have concluded that chaos's 'noob-friendliness' and cheapness has given the illusion they are OP among non-pr0s

havocs no longer instant supress, its more in line with other supression teams now. still pretty fast though. i think that havocs are fine, save for their melee resist. i think that makes them a little powerful.

Tcsm damage is a little silly. but its a lot of power investment. a fully upgraded Tcsm squad is 70 power, thats enough for a vehicle. things like plasma gun guardsmen can be more than a match for Tcsm for a lower cost with cheaper reinforcement. dont think this needs to be changed.

Phobos really doesn't seem that powerful to me, its only 2k HP on a very slow, enourmous target that can be snared by typical AV stuff. im also pretty sure the lascannon rhino has higher accuracy than the phobos vs infantry. and considering the phobo's cost, i dont think its an issue. something that is cheaper like the pred in all its forms will be more effective vs infantry usually than a phobos. so not much thats powerful about the phobos imo.

the sorc infiltration can be a little silly at times. but then again, rangers have something similar, on a much more mobile race that also works for allies, holofield. i dont think there is anything to complain about T worship. just get a detector and problem is usually solved. again, something i dont think needs to be changed.

Slaughter could do with some tweaking yea.
thread on discussing that here if anyone wants to add to it: viewtopic.php?f=3&t=1345

Tdread is a little powerful right now, but like i said in this thread: viewtopic.php?f=3&t=1306
the only thing that i consider powerful about it is the frenzied barrage ability; tone that down a bit, and it'll probably be a little better. but i still think that for 150 power its more-or-less balanced.

[Torpid]

Hold on guys. HOLD ON.

Before we talk about what is or is not OP it would be useful for someone to give a definition of "OP" that we can all agree on...

Cornholio you are the original poster. What does overpowered mean?

[Cheah18]

On the phobos, well, Its anti-melee ability seems pretty cheap to me. It kinda becomes nigh-invulnerable to a race like gk because, assuming paladins are the hardest AV choice, you do so much damage to them at range with the lascannons, then use the ability, then see you next engagement paladins. The damage of the rhino is far less than that of the phobos and the rhino is much easier to kill.

And with TCSM, yeh plasma gm bleed more cheaply, but you can possibly avoid bleed altogether with TCSM. You just backline dps dps dps BYEeeee under nurgle or tzeetch worship.

Spotter isn't always as effective as one would think vs Tzeetch because of the size of the area it operates on.

But yeh considering what Toprid is saying I AM NOT saying these things are OP. Just cheap, and noo-friendly/easy to abuse. Chaos to me is easy to use effectiveness which requires extremely skilful play by the opponent to counter.

[Ven]

Hold on guys. HOLD ON.

Before we talk about what is or is not OP it would be useful for someone to give a definition of "OP" that we can all agree on...

Cornholio you are the original poster. What does overpowered mean?

that would be nice. its why my answer to corn was so bland as there was little context.

also, only really been replying to cheah rather than being on topic here. as again, there is little to discuss until corn gives some context.

[Ven]

On the phobos, well, Its anti-melee ability seems pretty cheap to me. It kinda becomes nigh-invulnerable to a race like gk because, assuming paladins are the hardest AV choice, you do so much damage to them at range with the lascannons, then use the ability, then see you next engagement paladins. The damage of the rhino is far less than that of the phobos and the rhino is much easier to kill.

And with TCSM, yeh plasma gm bleed more cheaply, but you can possibly avoid bleed altogether with TCSM. You just backline dps dps dps BYEeeee under nurgle or tzeetch worship.

Spotter isn't always as effective as one would think vs Tzeetch because of the size of the area it operates on.

But yeh considering what Toprid is saying I AM NOT saying these things are OP. Just cheap, and noo-friendly/easy to abuse. Chaos to me is easy to use effectiveness which requires extremely skilful play by the opponent to counter.

in teamgames its virtually impossible to avoid bleed regardless of race or unit, IG also has mobile transport and reinforcement; chaos does not. and in 1v1, that 70 power will be a game changer for either player. sure a CSM player will get fully upgraded T marines with that 70 power, but the SM player will get a razorback allowing total map control dominance for a long time; usually deciding the game.

phobos ability is very unreliable anti-melee, its a 5 second stun sure but the phobos is still slow, it still will not be able to get away. heavy melee should not be your counter to phobos anyway knowing the dirge caster is there. it is however a 100 second cooldown, thats easily exploited; many times i've found myself purchasing a jump squad in T3 to jump them in, force the phobos to use its ability and THEN send in my army. also, phobos is as easy to kill as rhino imo. the rhino is fast but weak and does less damage. use snares. phobos is slow and fat, in a lot of cases you wont even need a snare.

also, paladins is usually a meh AV choice for GK. also BC wargear/global can stop the usage of dirge caster.

[Cheah18]

The game is balanced around 1v1, everything I say is regarding 1v1 unless I start with 'In team games' usually .

In 3v3 chaos certainly are not OP. The only annoying this is having a phobos out and just sit on a contested VP end game. 3v3 OP award goes to Nids and Orks. 2v2 however I think Chaos are probably the strongest race going, IG being up there too.

[Nurland]

Moved to General discussion by me. These conversations have the tendency to heat up so I will say this before it happens. Behave. No name calling etc. Keep it civil.

[Dark Riku]

This thread! Is it Christmas already? <3

iam not sure if this is the right place 2 post this but anyway.. 2 things i hear all the time... The word noob ( a word that has lost all meaning ) ,

You hear noob all the time because this is the internet. Nothing extraordinary here.

and ohh chaos is soooo OP. And yes , chaos was OP back in retail.. but thats the point of elite mod. balance. people just forget all the great stuff the other armies have.

Indeed, Chaos is dumb in retail. Thing in Elite is, they are still a top tier 1v1 race. Nobody is forgetting about anything ^^
Chaos just has an edge in 1v1.

i think space marines are better than chaos in most situations.

I strongly disagree.

force commander has that awsome shield in t1... that is great even in t3 ( dont forget the powerfist )

What's your point in making these fairly random statements throughout your post? Sure, the shield can be useful, but that is dependant on many factors. Something like the CL combi-flamer, for instance, is useful in way more situations.

apo passive heal that works on allies techmarine best hero in 3v3.. and those banshees with super ninja speed heavy melee.

Random statements.
@APO: That's kinda how teamgames work.
@TM: No..
@shees: They are fast and can have a heavy melee squad leader, indeed.

soo maybe people can give me a decent reason why chaos is op? and not just because they lost 2 chaos..

See the reasons above. There is a reason why the global winrate is as high as it is with Chaos.

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

havocs no longer instant supress, its more in line with other supression teams now. still pretty fast though.

Havocs still kinda insta pressures, the change is hardly noticeable.

im also pretty sure the lascannon rhino has higher accuracy than the phobos vs infantry.

I'm pretty sure they are exactly the same. According to the codex they both have the same weapon family and the same area of effect.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

These conversations have the tendency to heat up so I will say this before it happens.
Behave. No name calling etc. Keep it civil.

Party Pooper Nurland

[Ven]

havocs no longer instant supress, its more in line with other supression teams now. still pretty fast though.

Havocs still kinda insta pressures, the change is hardly noticeable.

im also pretty sure the lascannon rhino has higher accuracy than the phobos vs infantry.

I'm pretty sure they are exactly the same. According to the codex they both have the same weapon family and the same area of effect.

i think its noticable, its takes maybe a good 0.75 more seconds to suppress in 2.3.1. its noticable, but still very quick. havocs are still arguably the best setup team in the game ESPECIALLY with melee resist.

also, im just basing the rhino/phobos accuracy off of experience. ive seen rhino sniping warrior models. perhaps this doesnt happen as much as said warriors are higher lvl by the time fat-slow-useless phobos hits the field. phobos also has a tendency to charge a shot, then misfire as it turned like an idiot. atleast the rhino has a turret so that doesn't happen to often xD

also, +1 to pretty much everything else you said.

i think space marines are better than chaos in most situations.

I strongly disagree.

yea. scouts are pretty frikin awesome in 1v1s though. i think they trump tics in 1v1s. 3v3s is another story. scouts are just wet flannels in teamgames. tics still melt stuff in teamgames. as far as other units and unit compositions go, yea chaos is better. havocs are better than devs, other than vengence rounds being a good HT/CL/BC counter. ASM are basicallly the same as raptors at the end of the day. and chaos has noise marines; SM doesnt even have a 5th T1 unit.

force commander has that awsome shield in t1... that is great even in t3 ( dont forget the powerfist )

What's your point in making these fairly random statements throughout your post? Sure, the shield can be useful, but that is dependant on many factors. Something like the CL combi-flamer, for instance, is useful in way more situations.

apo passive heal that works on allies techmarine best hero in 3v3.. and those banshees with super ninja speed heavy melee.

Random statements.
@APO: That's kinda how teamgames work.
@TM: No..
@shees: They are fast and can have a heavy melee squad leader, indeed.

random statements are infact random. i personally think that the BC is the best 3v3 hero. that damage resistance AND speed buff is silly. combine that with IG + apo support and you got yourself a party.
@corn
also, i'd like to add that the storm shield is meh in T3. sure its supression immunity and damage resistance. but in T3 its less about the supression and more about the killy stuff. if you want a commander just for a damage resistance bring the BC; the BC even BUFFS speed rather than the stormshield DEBUFFING speed.

[Torpid]

Guys. What is the point discussing this when nobody has even gave a definition of OP?

-_-

It's not possible for it to ever be productive.

[Ven]

Guys. What is the point discussing this when nobody has even gave a definition of OP?

-_-

It's not possible for it to ever be productive.

well yea im still waiting on that so i can actually respond to the original post rather than the replies. but it seems cornholio posts on the forums and then doesnt come back for ages.

[Torpid]

You're all cascading through a million different topics at once and there is no-way we would ever get anything reasonable out of such discussions.

The whole topic of how we define "OP" is contentious in itself and then it leads to the topic of "well, what is the Elite mod aiming to do in 'improving balance', what is an improvement and what isn't?" These things need a thread in themselves.

Then we get into the discussion of the chaos composition and how it works together and how it fares vs the various different races, heroes, playstyles, game-modes and maps.

Then you start talking about how SM fits into all of this. Man, we could have a thread in itself comparing tics to scouts in each of the game-modes and MUs to see which is the "better" unit.

The topic of are ASM really the same as raptors is HUGE as well as both of this units are pretty fundamental to the compositions of both races these days.

It isn't possible for us to get anything out of such sweeping discussions; inevitably we will just end up talking past one another because we are not being specific or clear enough in what we say because we are to eager to talk about too much in too short a space of time.

[Batpimp]

did you play

_chacmol_?

and he called chaos OP I bet. He was doing that to anyone that outplayed him sunday

[Eclipse]

My suggestion for a definition of OP is here:
http://dawnofwar.info/index.php?page=ra ... ats=global

There are two possibilities here. Either this page is out of date and hasn't been updated since May, and should be updated to reflect games since the latest patch so that it provides useful information or removed so that it doesn't mislead. Or it is up to date and can be used to determine OPness in an objective manner.

[Batpimp]

why would you take those graphs, which are based on volunteered information, and interpret something as broad as CHAOS IS OP?

a very small fraction of the community even participates in that graph. its a big leap to interpret and extrapolate information off of that.

for example, look at the last few players. Don't you think the fact that they are statistical outliers skews the graphs in a certain way? If 20 people play 1 match as LA and lose that would lower the results of the LA in your example. Or it could be A lot of players play FC once and play badly and skew the results and thus the interpretation of said commander to make it seem that SM sucks?

[Eclipse]

I take those graphs to be relevant given their existence. If you thoroughly read my post then you saw that I acknowledged that they may not provide useful information in an attempt to preempt your exact response. Apparently I was unsuccessful.

[Batpimp]

I am contesting that, even if that information was up to date, it would be invalid.

That is why am arguing that they are irrelevant be they up to date or not. The answer we seek would not be in that data.

[Eclipse]

My sincerest of apologies. You are correct that I did not predict your particular reason for finding them to be not useful. However, given that the analysis, conclusion, and recommendation for information that is unreliable for being out of date and information that is unreliable for any other reason at all are identical, I presumed that a reasonable person would infer the same conclusion. Please allow me to quote myself with omissions.

My suggestion for a definition of OP is here:
http://dawnofwar.info/index.php?page=ra ... ats=global

There are two possibilities here. Either this page ... should be updated to reflect games ... so that it provides useful information or removed so that it doesn't mislead. Or it ... can be used to determine OPness in an objective manner.

[Ven]

a stastistic as to the popularity of heros and the winrate is hardly of any use. its basically just saying "oh, people like chaos lord" and "oh, because people like him, there is a higher win rate than other commanders"... because hes obviously played more... again, that information is 100% useless. sorry.

[Cheah18]

I think someone should let Marneus Calgar know that Techmarines are winning more battles than force commanders.

It is far from 100% useless... not that I am saying it is useful.

And you say Chaos Lord is played more so more wins... The opposite can be said about nids in the faction popularity section.

[Eclipse]

I'll be more explicit here I guess, the statistics are either:
Not Useful
Because: they are out of date, because the sample size is not large enough, because it is not representative of the population being a voluntary system, because we don't like the n00bs who participate, because the uploader's cat sneezed on the keyboard, or any reason at all; and
Should therefore be: 1) updated to provide a metric that is useful and or interesting to the community; or 2) removed because they serve no purpose other than to mislead; or
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. And;
Should therefore be: used in determining the current relative strengths and weaknesses of particular heroes and races in particular circumstances.

a stastistic as to the popularity of heros and the winrate is hardly of any use ... again, that information is 100% useless. sorry.

Because you find the statistic to be "hardly of any use" and "100% useless", and because "useless" means lacking in usefulness, I am going to go ahead and guess you fall into the camp that finds them to be not useful.
Although I lack entirely in qualification to judge the probity of the statistics myself, I accord them a presumption of validity because the developers put them there. Being without the knowledge myself to assess the useful and nonuseful nature of the statistics, my default presumption will always be in favor of the validity of the actions of the developers until presented with evidence to the contrary. Again, I apologize because people are apparently not understanding the words that I am saying. If there is any further confusion, or if I have misunderstood your comment, please, do let me know.

Tldnr
Statistics are either not useful and should be updated/removed; or useful and are a valid means to assess hero strengths and weaknesses.

[Ven]

but those statistics are nothing to do with the discussion. those stats are purely "for fun" stats that outline peoples favorite commanders etc. it holds no bearing on if a race is OP or not.

[Eclipse]

A Post Regarding "Statistical Outliers"

Don't you think the fact that they are statistical outliers skews the graphs in a certain way? If 20 people play 1 match as LA and lose that would lower the results of the LA in your example. Or it could be A lot of players play FC once and play badly and skew the results and thus the interpretation of said commander to make it seem that SM sucks?

its basically just saying "oh, people like chaos lord" and "oh, because people like him, there is a higher win rate than other commanders"... because hes obviously played more...

Preemption
First, acceptable statistical determination and residuals are a factor that should be considered when determining the useful or nonuseful nature of the statistics. Accordingly nothing in this post should be interpreted to preempt my previous assertions on usefulness, and the contents herein should be interpreted in a manner subject to the considerations on usefulness.

"Outliers"
Secondly, I am not one of the developers, but if I were, the fact that a particular hero or heroes was or were vastly over or under played as compared with other heroes, so much so that it creates a statistically significant difference in the metrics, then I would find that to be highly relevant information to me in terms of balance. If tons of people are playing a hero with a mediocre win rate then I can assume that they simply enjoy playing him, and the balance is about right (Pudge anyone?). If few people are playing a hero with a high win rate it could be that the hero is really good and has a really high skill cap. If tons of people are playing a hero with a really high win rate it could be (as you assert) people just have more practice with him, but more likely its that he's overpowered, and at least some of them are picking him because they know it.
Balance
As more people play the hero, you would expect the win ratio to regress toward the mean in a balanced system.
In this case, because for every hero that wins, another hero loses, we know the total probability will always be 1. Assuming we define "balanced" to be the point between "wins more than average" and "loses more than average" (which in some circles is known as "average") then a balanced hero should be close to or around 50%, correcting of course for the previous considerations of statistical significance. Therefore an overpowered hero is one who's likelihood of superiority is Positive as compared with more than half of the other heroes, or in a world with no draws > 50%. Which heroes meet this definition is a question of statistics. A good game should have variation in the heroes, such as in my high skill cap example above, but again, that's a question for the developers and the community.
https://chessprogramming.wikispaces.com ... Statistics

Tldnr
i can haz mathz plz?

[Eclipse]

I think, probably, the metric that I would use would be to look to heroes or races that are more than +/- 1 std dev in both popularity and win ratio as the first things that might need rebalancing. As for acceptable P value, I'd probably take one that was really high actually. Why? Because if the null hypothesis is in fact true the penalty is to change up the gameplay for no reason. This is great in a dynamic competitive video game. If I wanted a perfectly balanced game, I'd play chess. Totally up for debate though

[Torpid]

They're like trivia, that's why they are there. It's like the Indrid's Faction wars it's "cool" to have factions fight one another in that setting in 3v3 but because inevitably it doesn't necessarily follow that the teams are sufficiently balanced or that the map choices were equally favourable to both races and so on, faction wars are not good indicators of balance. We still do them though because they're fun.

There's way too much going on with those stats for them to ever be a good indicator of balance.

Popularity has nothing to do with balance. Most players in retail are SM players even though SM is terrible in retail just because SM are the face of 40k.

I mean forget all the above. Let's assume the statistics are right. We have made no progress whatsoever. Now we know what is OP, but we still don't have a clue what about the OP things is actually making them OP! No progress at all.

[Eclipse]

I mean forget all the above. Let's assume the statistics are right. We have made no progress whatsoever. Now we know what is OP, but we still don't have a clue what about the OP things is actually making them OP! No progress at all.

I agree with this. If you read my original post, it was responding to your assertion that a definition of OP was necessary before we continued the original thread.

I am thinking that my English is probably not proficient enough for me to convey my message. I think I have already addressed this point twice; but let me try to walk through my chart from earlier; again with apologies for misunderstandings.

First ask, am I talking about the statistics?

There's way too much going on with those stats for them to ever be a good indicator of balance.

So yes, we are talking about the statistics.

Second ask, do I think they are useful?

They're like trivia ... not good indicators of balance. We still do them though because they're fun.

No, we do not think they are useful, but we keep them for reasons not related to utility.
Therefore, you should not apply the statistics. This analysis should be identical to the following:

a stastistic as to the popularity of heros and the winrate is hardly of any use ... again, that information is 100% useless. sorry.

Because you find the statistic to be "hardly of any use" and "100% useless", and because "useless" means lacking in usefulness, I am going to go ahead and guess you fall into the camp that finds them to be not useful.

If that still did not make sense, please let me know, and I shall attempt to clarify..

A final point:

Popularity has nothing to do with balance. Most players in retail are SM players even though SM is terrible in retail just because SM are the face of 40k.

I agree with everything you said. In fact, I said something almost identical myself:

If tons of people are playing a hero with a mediocre win rate then I can assume that they simply enjoy playing him

The problem occurs when strong popularity and win rate correlate, and to a lesser extent when low win rates and low popularity correlates.

[Torpid]

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

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.

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.