Elric of Grans

Interplanetary Lists: some notes and observations

126 posts in this topic

Thanks for going through and putting all this together!

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That's an amazing effort! Thank you. 

Its unsurprising that chain rifles are the most preferred profile where they appear. The discount is hugely valuable 

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yep. Also unsurprising that when you get over a hundred players who, one would assume, practice infinity and often think about how to win more often, would avoid taking--Yevgueni Voronin, Sogarat, Khawarijs, grenzers, kamau, aelis keesan, shang ji. As a poster on this forum I'm obliged to pin a little disclaimer into this post and proclaim that it's not that these units are BAD, per se, because I want to remain politically correct...

But for some reason nobody wants to take them to a tournament like this. Ditto for many profiles that derive from otherwise good units, i.e chain rifle daturazi vs combi rifle daturazi.

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

yeah but at the same time only 1 CHA player ran a cateran and then it was only 1 of them.

given that all the CHA players ran wallace.....thats just nuts.

Id be very careful drawing conclusions like that from this data

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What I meant is that if someone had handed me a list of un-used units like that before this data appeared, I'd have said, "no, I wouldn't take any of those to a tournament." This data somewhat agrees with my intuitive analysis of game balance.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Vaulsc said:

What I meant is that if someone had handed me a list of un-used units like that before this data appeared, I'd have said, "no, I wouldn't take any of those to a tournament." This data somewhat agrees with my intuitive analysis of game balance.

sure, im just cautioning that there is some surprises there in terms of usage, some of which have me personally scratching my head

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
45 minutes ago, Daboarder said:

yeah but at the same time only 1 CHA player ran a cateran and then it was only 1 of them.

given that all the CHA players ran wallace.....thats just nuts.

Id be very careful drawing conclusions like that from this data

Given there were only 2 caledonian players... and 3 more vanilla lists took them I don't know what your point is. 50% utilisation (if we take such a small sample at face value) would indicate decent internal balance here. 

I think most players could nod in agreement at the chain rifle conclusion (as it broadly applies to several factions). Its also backed up by Yu Jing players and haqqislam players always taking their warbands. CA and Aleph players also almost always took the chain rifle options on profiles which had several. 

2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, Daboarder said:

4 cha players

Based on the lts.

2 players 4 lists maybe?

Thats what Elric's breakdown said. 

Either way, its a minor point to counter what I said. 

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Daboarder No, it was two players.  There are four lists (two per player), but only two CHA representatives.  Same with FRRM, with URF having only a lone representative.  The majority of Ariadna players were Vanilla.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ah right derp that makes sense.

 

Still not running caterans is like a cardinal sin or something

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, alphz said:

Given there were only 2 caledonian players... and 3 more vanilla lists took them I don't know what your point is. 50% utilisation (if we take such a small sample at face value) would indicate decent internal balance here.

Far too small a sample to be statistically significant.  Minimum useful sample size is 30, and even that is only about 80% accurate.

3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, Section 9 said:

Minimum useful sample size is 30, and even that is only about 80% accurate.

No. Even a sample size of around six or so is very useful if it's representative fo the population. Sample of two is too small for sure, but quickly after there will be interesting results. 

Notes about Haqq and HB: 

  • I'm quite surprised at the very low amount of HI in vanilla. Only Janissaries were fielded more than two times, which I find myself going for the least. 
  • I would've expected Zuleyka, but no Kum. 
  • No Daylami in HB! It is my go to anti-TAG to take 4-6 of these. 
  • All HB lists had both Ghulams and Muyibs. Which is quite interesting to me, as Ghulams were not LT's, so they had probably Ghulam Core with Muyib Haris. 
1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This analysis is very cool!
Now, imagine what can CB do with their own analytics, which tracks all of the ITS lists all over the world!
 

Fantastic!

 

2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, Guardian said:

This analysis is very cool!
Now, imagine what can CB do with their own analytics, which tracks all of the ITS lists all over the world!
 

Fantastic!

 

I don't think those statistic differ that much from what was shown here....

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Some of these statistics are unsurprising. Some are quite so. I think it would be a mistake to take them as a true indication of best play. We'd like Interplanetary to be the Olympics of Infinity but I suspect it's not amazingly above the typical standard of play of a big satellite tournament for many of the participants. Only a few players qualify by winning satellites, plus obviously there's some very experienced players like IJW etc, but I suspect that's still a minority.

2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Hachiman Taro said:

Some of these statistics are unsurprising. Some are quite so. I think it would be a mistake to take them as a true indication of best play. We'd like Interplanetary to be the Olympics of Infinity but I suspect it's not amazingly above the typical standard of play of a big satellite tournament for many of the participants. Only a few players qualify by winning satellites, plus obviously there's some very experienced players like IJW etc, but I suspect that's still a minority.

I think samples like these always need to be taken with a grain of salt. Certainly they can indicate relative strength of certain units but a lot of the time it can also be confirmation bias. (i.e. Everyone says Unit A is terrible, so nobody takes Unit A, so everybody thinks Unit A is terrible, etc.). Likewise, as you point out, its certainly possible that not everyone here was a top level player, but more to the point, even some of the top level players might be trying things in order to catch their opponents off guard. Just as an example, in Warmachine, one of the top players is JVM, and he often brings "odd" lists to big tournaments and wins. Now part of that is that JVM is just so good that a lot of the time it really doesn't matter a whole lot what his list is (and WMH is very much more list dependent than Infinity), but I'm sure some of it too is his opponents going "Huh, I've not run up against that before." 

All that said, I do like these kinds of analyses, especially as a new player, as it can at least give me something to take a look at in terms of units. Now, I don't think this kind of analysis can ever replace actual table time mind you, but it can help.

3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Gargs454 said:

I think samples like these always need to be taken with a grain of salt. Certainly they can indicate relative strength of certain units but a lot of the time it can also be confirmation bias. (i.e. Everyone says Unit A is terrible, so nobody takes Unit A, so everybody thinks Unit A is terrible, etc.). Likewise, as you point out, its certainly possible that not everyone here was a top level player, but more to the point, even some of the top level players might be trying things in order to catch their opponents off guard. Just as an example, in Warmachine, one of the top players is JVM, and he often brings "odd" lists to big tournaments and wins. Now part of that is that JVM is just so good that a lot of the time it really doesn't matter a whole lot what his list is (and WMH is very much more list dependent than Infinity), but I'm sure some of it too is his opponents going "Huh, I've not run up against that before." 

I think WM with its combos is very much more susceptible to the "huh, I've never seen than before" than infinity played at a reasonably high level. But it's an interesting point.

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, BLOODGOD said:

I think WM with its combos is very much more susceptible to the "huh, I've never seen than before" than infinity played at a reasonably high level. But it's an interesting point.

 

That's certainly true. I was thinking more of perhaps having lists prepared to face off against X, Y and Z only to have the opponent bring Q. Not so much that the a person doesn't understand how Q works, but perhaps just not prepared for it. That said, I'm sufficiently new to this that its just a theory.

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Gargs454 said:

 

That's certainly true. I was thinking more of perhaps having lists prepared to face off against X, Y and Z only to have the opponent bring Q. Not so much that the a person doesn't understand how Q works, but perhaps just not prepared for it.

That's a great point actually. I've felt that most players don't use Speculative Fire very well and it has a lot of potential for eliminating threats that are suicide face-to-face. In that regard it's much like Triangulated Fire, but both less accurate and less risky. With the new rules from Beyond (especially Fatality) that make a face-to-face shooting match even worse against those units, Spec Fire will gain relative utility. And combined with Sat-Lock it is pure murder against camo infiltrators, great for clearing mines, etc. Yet I bet it doesn't gain much popularity, mostly due to the confirmation bias you list and the difficulty of learning it (and the dependence on multiple units). I wonder what else we might find out there that's oddly missing from the meta, if we had CB's data on all ITS lists to look at?

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For what it's worth, Rory (10th-placed player with MO) did some nasty alpha strikes with a Montesa LGL. On one of the tables that had Low Visibility table-wide, his opponent started their first turn in LoL and with about a third of their troops left.

5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why are the Kuang Shi better than the Monk in vanilla Yu Jing? I would have thougt the 5p Monk was an outinculde in the faction (i only play Jsa)

 

 

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Kuang Shi provide regular orders, Monks don't.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, IJW Wartrader said:

For what it's worth, Rory (10th-placed player with MO) did some nasty alpha strikes with a Montesa LGL. On one of the tables that had Low Visibility table-wide, his opponent started their first turn in LoL and with about a third of their troops left.

Daaaamn Rory! That's definitely what I'm talking about. He must have rolled really well, but it shows how when you're already facing negative mods like low-vis, you might as well switch to an indirect attack with zero risk to the wielder. Thanks for the info IJW, I'll look at Rory's list.

16 minutes ago, FatNezumi said:

Why are the Kuang Shi better than the Monk in vanilla Yu Jing? I would have thougt the 5p Monk was an outinculde in the faction (i only play Jsa)


They're regular, Dogged, and can all become repeaters. And you can take 8 of them in ISS, 4 in vanilla.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites