AEONS are GARBAGE!
-
-
@IndexLibrorum in the world of statistics a sample size of 25 is actually not very good considering the large data pool of games. (I'm guessing a thousand games every 2 to 3 days)
Also does this sample size of 25 include games like dual Gap and Astro? If so I would argue that those need to be separated and compared to map generated matches. (Or delete it from the data pool entirely)
In my experience the players who frequent map generated games are far more likely to choose random faction than dual Gap players or Astro players (especially at the 1.2K plus level) who tend to pick a faction based on a position on the map, and to ensure that a team has at least one of each faction.
Also I believe that players in dual Gap or astro type games always make sure they have at least one aeon on their team specifically for the eye (and in many cases the para) with the point being that these statistics would be skewed based on the intent behind their selection of aeon.
Not to over complicate something that does need to be over complicated because I truly believe that aeon is fine as is.
I personally choose random faction 99% of the time and I like when I get Aeon but I can't stand it when my lane opponent is Aeon because my skill set finds it a lot more difficult to counter them than other factions between 0-30 mins.
-
I would not even be so sure that last 25 games were actually rated. It’s not specified. Could as well be 6 players survival.
That’s the general problem which was brought up on many occasions inside faf statistics megathreads for example. Most raw data is meaningless until you apply a multiple filters to it. But if it was, the result of additional work would likely far exceed quick forum reply format
-
Always the same classic, something is unpopular for one reason or other but not due to being weak. And somehow everyone thinks that buffing that shit is gonna fix the problem...
Hell, people are still gonna play cybran and Uef due to them just being the cool dudes that people like thematically. Even if they were weak. -
@Dorset said in AEONS are GARBAGE!:
@IndexLibrorum in the world of statistics a sample size of 25 is actually not very good considering the large data pool of games. (I'm guessing a thousand games every 2 to 3 days)
Also does this sample size of 25 include games like dual Gap and Astro? If so I would argue that those need to be separated and compared to map generated matches. (Or delete it from the data pool entirely)
You're free to share your own analysis
. I'm not feeling the urge to spend several hours on data wrangling in Rstudio to get paper-ready data. You'll note I didn't include confidence intervals or whatever. This is good enough for a quick look at the data.@Sainse said in AEONS are GARBAGE!:
I would not even be so sure that last 25 games were actually rated. It’s not specified. Could as well be 6 players survival.
That’s the general problem which was brought up on many occasions inside faf statistics megathreads for example. Most raw data is meaningless until you apply a multiple filters to it. But if it was, the result of additional work would likely far exceed quick forum reply format
Didn't specify, but yes I selected only rated, non-modded games with at least 6 players.
@TheVVheelboy said in AEONS are GARBAGE!:
Hell, people are still gonna play cybran and Uef due to them just being the cool dudes that people like thematically. Even if they were weak.
That's my understanding as well. UEF is not in a terrific place right now, but from my quick review looks like it's the most popular faction. Style and the factor of COOL counts for a lot, I suspect.
-
@IndexLibrorum Your own graph shows that AEONs represent the lowest percentage.
Being played 2x less than UEF and Cybrans.
Do you really believe there’s no problem with that?I play team games almost every day... 3v3... 4v4...
It’s undeniable that AEONS are rarely chosen.
There are matches with 10 players where absolutely no one chooses that faction! -
@AYAHUASCA_Dest I dont know what you mean? Just because many people not to choose Aeon because it actually the most difficult faction to play (but very strong if you do it correctly) doesnt mean that it is bad. Just because most of the players are playing Dual Gap it isnt a good map. This isnt a valuable argument in the slightest.
-
Guys stop feeding the troll!
-
-
Most players have no idea what they're doing. They aren't picking factions based on what is actually good. I still get 1200 rated players telling me Aeon T2 is bad because they watched a Heaven video 8 years out of date. The faction pick rates have hardly ever adjusted based on meta strength across time. UEF and Cybran have always been the top 2 factions by a large margin, Sera and Aeon have always been the bottom 2. This was true when Cybran was the dominant faction, it was true when UEF was, it was true when Aeon was. Aeon was picked less than UEF when they had all their current advantages + a t2 tank only slower than t1 land scouts + chrono autowinning any engagement prior to t3 + a gun acu that was impossible for 2 factions to counter outside of indirect/air combat + a destro good enough to trade mass efficiently against battlecruisers. Using overall player data is bad data. I could have literally told you Index's results without seeing them just because of paying attention to these trends from years ago, it's always been around 30/30/20/20 as a general rule split. You could remove the UEF t1 tank from the game and it would still be picked more than Aeon.
If you look at 1800+ faction pick rate, you have a more robust view of faction strength or at least you did more in the past but these days basically everybody plays random. So the only area you really have to look at for a statistical sample on faction strength is high rated tournaments where people are invested in winning games.
In generic land teamgames, Aeon and Cybran are probably top 2. In generic navy teamgames, Sera and Aeon. In a teamgame air slot, Aeon and UEF would be my generalist ratings if I had to pick top 2 factions in roles.
If you think Aeon is a bad faction, you're the reason it's bad when you roll it. It's incredibly strong and is ALWAYS an inclusion in your team faction rollout in a tournament because of the generic strength the faction provides. It's extremely difficult to thing of a situation where you're actually making a mistake for going with Aeon. Its weakness is entirely reliant on some snowball t1 stage which is extremely rare to exist in teamgames compared to 1v1.
-
Aeon is a strange faction they are over strong in some areas and very week in others
Aurora is OP on maps that are mixed water maps and outrange an upgraded com but are trash at raiding and get murdered by any air.
Destros are both OP and week as hell, very good range and damage but if oponent just moves their destros in circles then aeon destros are usless, I beat like 6 aeon destros with 3 sera destro just by cirlcing them aeon missed almost every shot.
Harbingers are good early on but get murdered by percy and bricks so the longer the game goes on the worse they get.
GC has less dps than the mokeylord so its not good enough to counter the weekness of harbingers.
Czars need to be directly over anything they try and kill so die very easily to sams but have less health than the bug.
Aeon has strengths but overall I find it to be weeker than any other faction.
-
If these are the Aeon weaknesses, it contains three of their strengths.
The destro is still the 2nd best destro, of course it’s worse than the best destro but both salem and valiant suck against exodus.
Harbs are absolutely not just good early on, they are the overall highest utility t3 land unit and are good across the entire t3-t4 stage. They are great at drops, at raids, at small number attacks, and at large number attacks. The only unit arguably as useful as harb is brick since it got buffed to just be a strictly better percy, putting percy over harb is completely nuts and not based in reality. Percy is like the 3rd best t3 unit for UEF let alone a unit to put into an argument on strong t3 units.
GCs are the perfect complement to harbs. Harbs suffer late game from not being able to force engagements due to range. A GC not only provides excellent HP tanking but it also forces essentially anything that isn’t a mega/fatboy into a fight when supported by either harbs or potentially snipers. Talking about GC dps just sounds like you aren’t using GCs properly nor do you understand what purpose it serves alongside harbs. You thinking this is how you use it just goes to show how strong it is, because you can just meathead spam GCs and still get completely solid results.
Czars are just really big restos, you’re not supposed to just fly over sams and have it die. I'll admit it isn't a strength tho.
-
@Caliber said in AEONS are GARBAGE!:
Destros are both OP and week as hell, very good range
Range nerfed hard.
-
@FtXCommando how can you say harbs are better than percy
percy has much better range, health, dps and are amphibious
only thing harbs have is that they are cheap
-
@Caliber Harbs have way more dps per mass spent. They have slightly less health but have the utility of a rechargeable shield. They have a much higher rate of fire making them far superior vs lower tech units and when dropping. Most importantly they are far faster and more agile (microable) than percies meaning you can run cirlces around them. You can choose to raid behind the percies or pick a fight when it is advantageous to do so. Harbs and Bricks as FtX said are the two best t3 units imo.
-
Percies are slower than chickens and same speed as GCs let alone t3 units. They have zero agency in choosing fights and are horrible at combat because of it. The best usage of percies is keeping anything away from your actual damage dealers, which for UEF is often just spearheads.
HP is overstated, percies have 5.62 hp per mass, harbs have 5.47.
DPS is just wrong with .26 dps per mass for percies and .38 dps per mass for harbs. (Spearhead is .6 btw)
Range is the only real thing there isn’t an answer for, and that’s what GC exists for. If percies are forced to move into harbs, they lose the engagement when both are in range of each other.
It’s way more controversial of a take to consider percy better than harb, percy is a unit that needs buffs even.
-
@FtXCommando said in AEONS are GARBAGE!:
Percies are slower than chickens and same speed as GCs let alone t3 units.
Percies are 2.2 speed, while chicken/GC are 2.5/2.4 speed respectively. You're thinking of bricks with 2.4 speed. The rest of what you said with them being unable to start fights is correct though.
-
I thought they got buffed last patch to be 2.4 like GC so I edited it. I just manifested by own proposal to buff them I think. So sad.
-
Also I'd like to mention that Aeon gets another anti-Percival unit in their double range double shield ACU long before a GC can be built, so it's not like Harbs are even bad on one-lane maps where in theory Percivals always kite and win. Harbs are great for keeping Percies off your ACU in that situation because the Percies have to try to swarm your ACU to kill it instead of dying one by one but that requires moving forward into Harbs/shields.
-
Aeon is just boring to play tbh, even if they are balanced or the strongest.
