Results 1 to 8 of 8

Thread: A thought on team stat numbers

  1. #1

    A thought on team stat numbers

    I've been playing for a few months (when I can get to it) and love the game. In the last month I've found a build that really suits my play style and that doesn't usually get hard countered by other players builds. I've also found that (so far) I'm not getting smacked around by evolutions in the meta game and I'm feeling pretty happy with my win rate in quick matches. So anyway, I've been playing this build for awhile and tonight I tweaked something slightly and started to ponder my team totals for health, armor, armor break etc. I added them up and got this (see my specific lvl 12 build here):

    health: 61
    armor: 62
    will power: 31
    exertion: 14
    armor break: 14

    Maybe other people have speculated about this in other places, but I wonder if there's anything telling about a team's stat totals. Certainly the totals aren't a comprehensive metric for evaluating a build, but I wonder if the totals say something about a player's appetite for risk. I imagine that each player could examine their team totals and discover a range of stats that speaks to their play style without actually identifying the characters used (for a given power level). If so, what about the community at large? Is it possible that there's a median range for say, armor or health (or all stats?), that are generally employed, outside of which is either folly or genius?

    One last observation; I can't help but notice my health and armor are almost equal, and that willpower is about half of each. Exertion and armor break are equal, and about half again. A coincidence? Anyone else care to compare team totals? For apples to apple's sake, I love to hear about other lvl 12 teams, but all are welcome.
    Last edited by GorillaKhan; 06-20-2013 at 02:03 PM.

  2. #2
    There is a thread that details it if you want to look at other teams.!

    But I think it is though allright to make a new thread to liven up the discussion.

    I like your team as it has nearly everything needed. I think the provoker/ strongarm combo is getting higher in the two varl combinations (probably after the shieldbangers upgrade). Your team has break (backbiters + provoker even BM), control on the field (provoker, SRM and SS) and damage (SRM and BM). And it looks like it is fun to play.

  3. #3
    Senior Member Butters's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Tokyo, Japan
    I haven't thought much about that totals so can't say anything about that. Like many, I think of team balance in terms of unit roles. In that regard, I do the very same analysis of your team that hreinnbeno does (ie it's good and balanced).
    I'm not a big fan of how you spread promotions and some stats around though.
    Varls are usually not the best candidates for rank 3 as their abilities usually have diminishing returns. The rank 3 BM is also of limited use IMHO. It's a shame to not have your SS rank 3 if you're going to have a PK on the team - I know that combo is kind of overplayed and not super satisfying tactically (at least to me ; there is no good counter to it, so it feels cheesy) but it's damn effective ! Also, 4 wp and 3 ex on the backbiters I strongly distaste : you're going to burn through wp in 1 turn and be left never using all that ex again. I'd much rather see them at least at 10 arm. Unless they are designed to die early to give you turn advantage, but 2 kamikaze seems a bit much. Lastly, I prefer not having AB on my SRMs. Especially at r3, if you need armor break, there's always the push.
    Here's how I would have done it (trying to stick to the original idea)
    Of course your extensive experience with this build (and my lack of it) may give you some significant insight I'm not grasping, so that's obviously just my humble untested opinion.

  4. #4
    Skald Aleonymous's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Hello GorillaKhan. An interesting approach to team-building.

    It would be interesting to amass and compare the team-stat-numbers of the most popular (or most formidable) builds. For example, the builds of the top-3 ranked players of the latest power-12 tourneys. KB, Tirean, Butters, glraven, Yth, AnotherPersona and others (probably not RPGamer) are active in the forums/community and typically use one-build-per-tourney, so they can impart these figures.

    Then again, as Butters says, with the higher-ranks mixes at power-12, the play-style of a build is as much a governing factor as the unit-stats with respect to the overall performance of a build.

  5. #5
    Thanks for the comments. Much appreciated. The "minor changes" I mentioned (and didn't include) were to switch the promotions on my SS and BM. Of course it's fun to combine a three star trap with malice, and that has been a variation I play with, but it's not always available, or even the best move. I quite like the BBs as I have them. First, their range really helps control the board, and specifically keeps the WMs and WHs back in the mid/late game, (my Varls always have less range). Also, I'll happily trade a BB for an archer (plus one more shot from one of my archers), but I don't usually sac both BBs, unless I can get double hits on a WM or WH. But the long range is probably just a personal preference. If I'm playing defensively I use them as a shield wall, and use my archers to destroy attacking warriors. I appreciate the observations on the Varls. I'll certainly experiment with changing their promotions.

  6. #6
    I agree, and I'm very very curious. Have the top rated players you mentioned posted their builds? If so, I don't know where they are. Any help is appreciated. I really do suspect there will be some commonality. I find it so interesting because it could provide a common denominator for a winning build, while completely disregarding the composition of the team. If it's true, it would actually numerically quantify success in a way I've yet to see here. We might actually find some generally accepted guidelines, like "Your combined armor shouldn't be more than a couple points higher than your combined strength, and viceversa."

  7. #7
    Thanks for that link, and for "letting it ride." Of course this is not the first thread about tactics, but it may be an opportunity to explore builds from a purely numeric perspective. Obviously approaching a build from the perspective of unit roles, as Butters remarked below, will always be the main approach. Appreciate your remarks about my build.

  8. #8
    On second thought, I wonder if the top players would more break the mold than make it. (per my comment about follie or genius). In other words, a player like myself (I'll call myself average, certainly not top, but not a beginner either) might find some rules of thumb for middle-of-the-road play by looking at build totals, but I suspect that top players wouldn't conform. In Hreinnbeno's link above, Butters listed his build in April (don't know if he still uses it) and it strikes me as a very powerful, high strength build, but not something a beginner, or a modestly skilled player could use well.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts