OldBlood
Erta Wanderer
Well-Known Member
- Messages
- 4,272
- Likes Received
- 9,774
- Trophy Points
- 113
agreed this is why we discount very low representation(there was a point when the first ed BOC book shot up 40% due to a very good player) and also take into account placement in events.As somewhat of an outsider to the purely competitive scene, it appears to me that the game is balanced around competitive play. I do think that army usage rates should be factored in though. We know for example that a really popular army can have a much lower winrate despite being strong simply due to the number of less experienced players running that army. While an army with objectively weaker rules can have a higher winrate if the fewer people playing that army are really, really good at it.
win rates are not based around all games played they are based around tournament games so you don't have to worry about lack of skill forcing a loss as most(not all) games used have a base level of skill.I think Gitz is a primary example. Most people who are good at the game won't have much trouble beating Gitz. But the players who aren't as experienced will be surprised when facing a good Gitz player. So to my point of view win rate can be somewhat misleading but it's still an important metric to look at.
pretty much yeahIf an army is popular and has a consistently high winrate (looking at you, Tzeentch!) then it's pretty safe to say that army is probably a bit OP. If an army is consistently below average or at the bottom then you can reasonably assume that army is probably lacking in some ways.