Dogs of War Online

Hi fellow wolven. I would like to hear your opinion regarding what seems to be the underdog (pun intended) faction right now. Just to be clear i came to this conclusion by simply looking at top 20 and comparing the win/loss ratio average of the different factions. Also with this thread i do not want to state that it is impossible to have a good win/loss ratio with wolven so no need to show off your statistics. My aim is simply to gather feedbacks for the devs so that they can balance better this faction.

Unfortunately i did not bother to record last week ladder but i assumed it looked a bit better than the current one (see: worg AP nerf).

as of today (11.4.2014):
top 20 teams:

Lion: 9
Ram: 5
Wolf: 6

Now, this might look more or less balanced but lets take a look at the win/loss ratio average as often top 20 shows more who has time to play rather than a good skill level:

Lion: 6.3
Ram: 5.2
Wolf: 1.9

This might be inaccurate as some players are performing extremely good while some others are bit so and so but it won't take you a lot to see how Lion and Ram top 20 players are always performing much better with their win/loss ratio than their wolven fellows.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
other stats:
top 5 players from each faction to make it even. They are in order of importance the percentages.

Lion: 93% + 73% + 93% + 75% + 86% = 84% average win ratio
Ram: 90% + 75% + 88% + 57% + 77% = 77.4% average win ratio
Wolf: 60% + 72% + 72% + 57% + 46% = 61.4% average win ratio
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sample size for each faction is 10, the 2 highest and lowest win ratio are removed. (situation as of 12.4.2014)

Lion: 95% + 72% + 82% + 86% + 82% + 56% + 60% + 62% + 82% + 61% --> (95%, 86%, 56%, 60% --> removed) = 73% average win ratio of top 10 lion players excluding best 2 and worst 2

Ram: 61% + 91% + 78% + 90% + 78% + 80% + 79% + 62% + 82% + 42% = 77% average win ratio of top 10 ram players excluding best 2 and worst 2

Wolf: 60% + 64% + 70% + 46% + 57% + 64% + 80% + 75% + 54% + 63% = 63% average win ratio of top 10 wolf players excluding best 2 and worst 2

standard deviation:

Lion: 10% --> skill gap between players?
Ram: 7%
Wolf: 5% --> not a huge difference between the players!
Question is: WHY?

My reasons in a nutshell:

-Worg was probably pushing some players up in the top and it was quite a good choice. Now it is no more possible to create decent warbands with it.
- Crossbowmen are terrible for their AP. I would take a lion archer with accuracy ANY DAY (it costs less, deals more damage !!!).
- Wolven hunter compared to the other assault unit is very sad. Ok it has the highest damage output but it is very easy to hit, even by a single basic unit + WIL of FOUR (the smallest in the game i think) means it is very often feared. A dead wolven hunter deals 0 damage.
- Warrior monks/mages mobility is heavily nerfed. This is good as before it was really crazy but it severely diminished the power of lonewolf and rune guardian.
- Wolven elites are sub-par because of their AP costs. Leveling GG or PoB to lvl 4+ means you have to fill your company with low level basic units (using 4 units as a wolven it is a suicide). KoTL and SW can provide much greater benefits at lower costs.

Now i'm not asking to redesign the whole army but simply to consider some AP tweaks (not on fangs please ).

what are the other players opinions? Is it just me who feels wolven are currently the underdogs?

Lion: 6.3
Ram: 5.2
Wolf: 1.9

what are those numbers ?

Dragon_Warrior wrote:

Lion: 6.3
Ram: 5.2
Wolf: 1.9

what are those numbers ?

Win/loss ratio average of all the players on top 20.

To make an example, a player with 50 victories and 2 losses it will have a ratio of 25 (50/2) meaning that he (in theory) loses one game after 25 played.

So we can say that wolven top 20 players on average lose one game after about 2 matches.

EDIT:

maybe average win percentages is clearer. I just consider top 5 players from each faction to make it even. They are in order of importance the percentages.

Lion: 93% + 73% + 93% + 75% + 86% = 84% average win ratio
Ram: 90% + 75% + 88% + 57% + 77% = 77.4% average win ratio
Wolf: 60% + 72% + 72% + 57% + 46% = 61.4% average win ratio

be nice and exclude this 57% ram guy

2'nd and - if you really want to see your top rank company
http://cloud-4.steampowered.com/ugc/331 ... 4A16C6A11/
as a prof of anything you do above (by counting ratios and %) is wrong

you really want to measure faction by one unit warband only?

Playing Vs lameness like that need lot of work even for a Ram company

but the most terrifying is that when you manage to kill all the Bowmans... remaining swordsmans will start to run in all directions...
http://cloud-2.steampowered.com/ugc/331 ... 8DA56FDE4/
and catching them with your remaining units will not be easy
http://cloud-3.steampowered.com/ugc/331 ... 87BB0DAE4/
but possible

there should be additional ranking for most lame companies

I don't disagree with your assessment Deep Blue but for the sake of discussion I'd like to provide a different perspective.

I wouldn't necessarily say that the problem is Lion or Ram being unbalanced. The problem is that Wolfen is unbalanced. What I mean by that is the Wolfen Army is arguably the most one-dimensional of the current 3 available. It's obvious that the Wolfen "Forte" is melee combat, and unfortunately that is the only thing Wolfen is good at. Like you said due to some previous changes, AP restrictions has prevented any means of creating a "more" balanced composition such as including bowman's. I might also say that Wolfen's have the weakest spellcasters which further limit the ability to create a "balanced" composition (Although I think this is ok and it makes sense since the Wolfen's persona is brute-force and not finnesse).

Because the Wolfen is currently so one-dimensional, opponents never have to guess what type of comp they are going against. 99% of the time you know it will be a composition of 3-5 aggro melee specialist and maybe 1 or 2 mage/archer. And because opponents know what they're up against, they can easily put together a counter composition. For example, Ram vs Wolfen (2 hardboiled skull warrior = counter, Lion vs Wolfen (3 war lions = counter). It's like knowing that you're opponent is going to use a golem so you bring a bunch of feroicious archers.

This is a slightly un-related note. I noticed that many players use the same composition regardless of what faction they are playing against. Personally I have 3 different compositions ready and each one is optimized based on which faction the opponent plays. If you're a player who tend to have inconsistent results then I recommend you also diversify between different compositions.
One thing that I

Deep Blue wrote:Hi fellow wolven. I would like to hear your opinion regarding what seems to be the underdog (pun intended) faction right now. Just to be clear i came to this conclusion by simply looking at top 20 and comparing the win/loss ratio average of the different factions. Also with this thread i do not want to state that it is impossible to have a good win/loss ratio with wolven so no need to show off your statistics. My aim is simply to gather feedbacks for the devs so that they can balance better this faction.

Unfortunately i did not bother to record last week ladder but i assumed it looked a bit better than the current one (see: worg AP nerf).

as of today (11.4.2014):
top 20 teams:

Lion: 9
Ram: 5
Wolf: 6

Now, this might look more or less balanced but lets take a look at the win/loss ratio average as often top 20 shows more who has time to play rather than a good skill level:

Lion: 6.3
Ram: 5.2
Wolf: 1.9

This might be inaccurate as some players are performing extremely good while some others are bit so and so but it won't take you a lot to see how Lion and Ram top 20 players are always performing much better with their win/loss ratio than their wolven fellows.

other stats:
top 5 players from each faction to make it even. They are in order of importance the percentages.

Lion: 93% + 73% + 93% + 75% + 86% = 84% average win ratio
Ram: 90% + 75% + 88% + 57% + 77% = 77.4% average win ratio
Wolf: 60% + 72% + 72% + 57% + 46% = 61.4% average win ratio

Question is: WHY?

My reasons in a nutshell:

-Worg was probably pushing some players up in the top and it was quite a good choice. Now it is no more possible to create decent warbands with it.
- Crossbowmen are terrible for their AP. I would take a lion archer with accuracy ANY DAY (it costs less, deals more damage !!!).
- Wolven hunter compared to the other assault unit is very sad. Ok it has the highest damage output but it is very easy to hit, even by a single basic unit + WIL of FOUR (the smallest in the game i think) means it is very often feared. A dead wolven hunter deals 0 damage.
- Warrior monks/mages mobility is heavily nerfed. This is good as before it was really crazy but it severely diminished the power of lonewolf and rune guardian.
- Wolven elites are sub-par because of their AP costs. Leveling GG or PoB to lvl 4+ means you have to fill your company with low level basic units (using 4 units as a wolven it is a suicide). KoTL and SW can provide much greater benefits at lower costs.

Now i'm not asking to redesign the whole army but simply to consider some AP tweaks (not on fangs please ).

what are the other players opinions? Is it just me who feels wolven are currently the underdogs?

Deep after a closer look I found the data you collected may be scewed. Redo your calculation without my score and CWJackson's. You'll see that the distribution is much aligned with the rest. The reason as follow:

-my score is really an outlier. I elect that you exclude it from calculation.

-Notice that CWJackson is 36-7-0 yet his score is 47. This is clearly an inflated score. Look at Malice's score for comparison. Malice is 39-8-3 yet his score is 61 (much higher than CWJacksons). This suggest that several of CWJackson's games were not accounted for due to game interrupt. These game interrupts are equivalent to a loss (intentional or not).

p122ab0y wrote:
I wouldn't necessarily say that the problem is Lion or Ram being unbalanced. The problem is that Wolfen is unbalanced.

i agree with what you said but i do not think they are unbalanced (which is my opinion a very strong word) but they rather need to be tweaked a little.

So far the FOTM looks like to be 4x lion archers (acc+double shot) + 5x swordsmen (parry) which really rapes any wolven composition as it has a very high initial burst which if focused on few units you will end up with half your army. Same can be said by HB Skeleton zerg which in general can block your fangs quite reliably.

It is hard to come with a statistic as real as possible (and to tell you the truth i do not want to build any kind of complex analysis) but since you asked for it, and i'm curious, i will try to do this experiment. I leave the top 2 values of each faction (meaning the 2 values with the highest win ratio) and the top two lowest win ratio values. Sample size for each faction is 10. (situation as of 12.4.2014)

Lion: 95% + 72% + 82% + 86% + 82% + 56% + 60% + 62% + 82% + 61% --> (95%, 86%, 56%, 60% --> removed) = 73% average win ratio of top 10 lion players excluding best 2 and worst 2

Ram: 61% + 91% + 78% + 90% + 78% + 80% + 79% + 62% + 82% + 42% = 77% average win ratio of top 10 ram players excluding best 2 and worst 2

Wolf: 60% + 64% + 70% + 46% + 57% + 64% + 80% + 75% + 54% + 63% = 63% average win ratio of top 10 wolf players excluding best 2 and worst 2

for the records, standard deviation:

Lion: 10% --> skill gap between players?
Ram: 7%
Wolf: 5% --> not a huge difference between the players!

so all in all, the situation doesn't change. Wolven are still behind and i think 10% difference with the second is quite huge.

I mean why no matter how you try to analyze wolven players are always behind? Are the best players only playing ram and lion? and if yes, why?

I mean why no matter how you try to analyze wolven players are always behind? Are the best players only playing ram and lion? and if yes, why?

Not exacly best - simply most Win orientated...
as i said before - if i See a 5 lev 2 archers composition then I pitty the player behind that (same that played 5 Fang+ Crossbowmans band when they were cheaper than anything) because there is nothing fun or tactical behind that...


but on the other hand when i see p122ab0y with lions without even one Archer... well i really regret that game as interrupted ;/

Dragon_Warrior wrote:

I mean why no matter how you try to analyze wolven players are always behind? Are the best players only playing ram and lion? and if yes, why?

Not exacly best - simply most Win orientated...
as i said before - if i See a 5 lev 2 archers composition then I pitty the player behind that (same that played 5 Fang+ Crossbowmans band when they were cheaper than anything) because there is nothing fun or tactical behind that...


but on the other hand when i see p122ab0y with lions without even one Archer... well i really regret that game as interrupted ;/

if people are win oriented and go for lion or ram...it means that they believe that wolven aren't worth it

Personally I play lion because I find best for theorycrafting and I'm always looking for that original composition that no one else has tried. Ram is pretty good too but unfortunately I haven't found one that is both original and well-balanced. I'm waiting for them to buff bad omen so I can roll a 3x priest comp