A Note on Commander Win Rates

Co-op Missions Discussion
Blizzard has commented how feedback they receive claims Fenix is less powerful than his peers, yet he has the highest win rate. I believe win rate does not necessarily provide evidence that he is the 'most powerful'.

The question is around that high win rate stat relative to the other commanders. Fenix is the newest commander and also a bit more intensive to play. I would surmise that these two factors lead co-op "crazies" (read: folks that obsess over the mode and play it the most relative to the rest of the playerbase) to playing him disproportionately and these players are going to win pretty much every time based on their experience with the mode. This could artificially appear like Fenix is doing well as the players that win the most are playing Fenix the most.

This is just one example of how win stats could be misleading. The mode is meant to be won by default with incredibly powerful Commanders and abilities; the people who enjoy the mode the most - who also play it the most - are winning every time. So the real question is: which commander are these people playing because that commander will appear to have the best win rate probably.
07/21/2017 12:34 PMPosted by Jayborino
win rate does not necessarily provide evidence that he is the 'most powerful'.

Perhaps Fenix is a strong support with offense and defense. The way I see Fenix's strongest ability is that 20% discount so he can max out army quickly to overwhelm foes by quantity, not quality. That being said, he synergizes well with other commander rather than a solo commander.
- With Raynor: Easy tanker, roll with bio ball.
- With Kerrigan: Ground force benefits significantly in creep. Easy ball even against air.
- With Artanis: Guardian shell + cheap army = overwhelming ball.
- With Swann: Gas gas gas. Oh and also repair troops, feels good man!
- With Zagara: Cloaked explosion is another level of suicide!
- With Vorazun: You know the Shadow!
- With Karax: Free orbital healing!
- With Abathur: Safe engagement with slowed foes. That carries early game to have a ball army.
- With Alarak: This is only commander that Fenix doesn't support as much as others.
- With Nova: Fenix cloaks army and Nova can take out detection with an ease.
- With Stukov: He's fine himself, just struggle with detection.
07/21/2017 12:34 PMPosted by Jayborino
Fenix is less powerful than his peers, yet he has the highest win rate. I believe win rate does not necessarily provide evidence that he is the 'most powerful'


David Sum who doesn't want to wave the white flag on his first commander design yet.

He'll likely get similar buffs to Abby at a later point.

At the moment Fenix just can't hold his own in mutations with his squishy toy army without a 'Tier One' commander (Nova/Stukov/Alarak types) there carrying him.
Blizzard should consider the playrate of Fenix compares to other commanders as well, not just win rate alone.
My guess is Fenix has low if not the lowest playrate among Co-op commanders atm due to being the most recent commander and his lackluster feel when play so not many would favor picking him for Brutal and mutation.

As Jayborino said:
07/21/2017 12:34 PMPosted by Jayborino
the people who enjoy the mode the most - who also play it the most - are winning every time.

Combines this with the low playrate of Fenix will result in a misleading statistic.
It's definitely puzzling how Fenix could have the highest win rate given how easily my entire army can melt away against regular, non-mutation brutal attack waves with him.
07/21/2017 11:31 PMPosted by typhoon
It's definitely puzzling how Fenix could have the highest win rate given how easily my entire army can melt away against regular, non-mutation brutal attack waves with him.


I think it's because his one, specific style (carriers currently, it used to be carrier/scout but the interceptor priority change made scouts kind of useless in the composition) is still incredibly powerful.

Fenix's army is built to have a lot of options, but none of them are really viable against mutations or even in general except for mass carriers. You can win with the other comps, sure, but they're just not as effective and you're way more likely to lose as your army melts
07/21/2017 11:31 PMPosted by typhoon
It's definitely puzzling how Fenix could have the highest win rate given how easily my entire army can melt away against regular, non-mutation brutal attack waves with him.


07/22/2017 01:23 AMPosted by Togetic
Fenix's army is built to have a lot of options, but none of them are really viable against mutations or even in general except for mass carriers.


I must be some kind of protoss god. I don't even like Protoss.
My best guess would be that since he's new and different, many players are leveling him and playing him a lot in non-mutations. Therefore "winning" a lot of their matches. Most other commanders are old and played out, therefore majority of players mostly play them in the weekly mutation, and for some until they win "once".

I can't comment on the various maps, but I've paired with quite a few Fenix's on the new map, Scythe of Amon. And so many players try to take those massive waves by themselves and end up losing their entire army. They think they are playing Zagara or something. Even when there's a bunch of Static Defense right behind them, some don't retreat to it and instead decide they should charge into battle like a fanatical Zealot "For Aiur!" And like every time...they get pwned. Don't get me started on the trying to take the Shard by themselves... XD
I like Fenix design, theme and concept, especially Kaldalis <3 but... I've never met in co-op Fenix ally, who would be very good. Yes, most of them was 90th lvl and they were able to carry their own weight on regular brutal, but it never was extraordinary skill that I use to see on any other commander sometimes. Most of you say, he's best build is mass carriers, but tbh it frustrates me, when I have to carry Fenix till he reach critical mass of carriers. Besides, carriers are kinda slow, have similar flows to mass tempests build.

Or to put it simply: my coop mate, who is way better than me on almost every commander, have 2x APM than me etc, seems to be weaker than me, when he plays Fenix.
07/22/2017 06:10 AMPosted by aloszka
I like Fenix design, theme and concept, especially Kaldalis <3 but... I've never met in co-op Fenix ally, who would be very good. Yes, most of them was 90th lvl and they were able to carry their own weight on regular brutal, but it never was extraordinary skill that I use to see on any other commander sometimes. Most of you say, he's best build is mass carriers, but tbh it frustrates me, when I have to carry Fenix till he reach critical mass of carriers. Besides, carriers are kinda slow, have similar flows to mass tempests build.

Or to put it simply: my coop mate, who is way better than me on almost every commander, have 2x APM than me etc, seems to be weaker than me, when he plays Fenix.


Perhaps that's because mass carrier isn't his best build.

But what can I do? If people don't use his tools and obviously don't even understand them (why do people say his disruptors are crap when they're ascendant level OP vs ground units?) then one random dude on the forum can't change it.
I don't know about mutations. I don't play mutations because I dislike the game mode. However, in brutal missions Fenix has quickly become one of my all around most solid picks even surpassing Nova depending on the map. And that is as someone who usually doesn't play Protoss and keeps forgetting what little build order knowledge he had about that race.

It sounds like everyone gave up on his units before they even tried and knee-jerked to the time tested mass carrier build of Karax.
Fenix' Disruptors are really great after their buffs, yes, but the rest of Fenix' units are hardly amazing. Due to the nature of their mechanics, carriers simply come out on top. I say this as someone who abhors the boring a-move-and-forget playstyle of carriers. After the initial slow startup, carriers rapidly prove to be a faster choice for speedily clearing a map than anything else Fenix has to offer. Additionally, opening with Robo or Gateway will commit you to a composition that is inherently weak against air before you even know what comp the enemy is, and you will then struggle to switch into the only proper counter; mass carrier (although, against zerg air, mass adept is also decent). Against protoss and terran air, scouts are no longer even a good counter because they are no longer protected by the interceptors, and they simply arent built for tanking damage. They're really susceptible to getting blown up by Yamato cannons, too. This massive weakness to air basically forces you to either open with stargate, or just accept that if the enemy is air you'll have to struggle to catch up on tech.
07/22/2017 07:48 AMPosted by Aron
Fenix' Disruptors are really great after their buffs, yes, but the rest of Fenix' units are hardly amazing.

Blizz has never changed their stats, did they? The have only made them cheaper.

07/22/2017 07:48 AMPosted by Aron
Due to the nature of their mechanics, carriers simply come out on top. I say this as someone who abhors the boring a-move-and-forget playstyle of carriers. After the initial slow startup, carriers rapidly prove to be a faster choice for speedily clearing a map than anything else Fenix has to offer.

I don't see how this can possibly be true with such low dps / supply.

07/22/2017 07:48 AMPosted by Aron
Additionally, opening with Robo or Gateway will commit you to a composition that is inherently weak against air before you even know what comp the enemy is, and you will then struggle to switch into the only proper counter;

Fenix isn't Karax.
Fenix was designed from the ground up and given all the necessary tools to make tech switches. Actually, his default playstyle is a mix of air and ground units and he can easily afford it. Fenix doesn't "commit". That's where you're wasting massive potential.

07/22/2017 07:48 AMPosted by Aron
Against protoss and terran air, scouts are no longer even a good counter because they are no longer protected by the interceptors, and they simply arent built for tanking damage. They're really susceptible to getting blown up by Yamato cannons, too. This massive weakness to air basically forces you to either open with stargate, or just accept that if the enemy is air you'll have to struggle to catch up on tech.

I agree that he is weaker geared on the AA front than on the ground front (a re-occouring theme with many commanders for some reason). I also don't understand why Bliz is so prone to just ruining things that were perfectly fine. It was so obvious they weren't just going to "reduce a-move awesomeness of Carriers", they outrightd removed their ability to tank which was perfectly fine. Typical Blizz really, just like when they changed volatile infested to bio upgrades or how they ruined swarmhosts in the same patch.

That said, I don't see how scouts are a bad unit. They are the protoss equivalent of goliaths and with Fenix' economical bonuses they are even as easy to afford and replace. They still deal very decent damage (about the same as Carriers I think but less susceptible to armor) but they are much faster and a strong early to mid game unit where carriers are weak.
It's honestly pretty ridiculous to still be trying to claim the commander with the highest win rate in all modes (last we heard) is weak. Maybe there's some things skewing the stats a little, but even if he's not actually the strongest (personally I don't think he's number one either), he has to be at least one of the stronger choices.

Do you guys really believe that Blizzard wouldn't be taking into account his play rates and such? That would be an incredibly rookie mistake for a major company.

I think what you need to consider is that things may feel weak without actually being so. I think maybe because his army doesn't feel as blatantly OP as some other things -- it doesn't have the same dramatic flair -- you feel like it's weaker than it is. Because he's definitely not weak in actual performance. I don't even use the Carrier build that much, and I almost always beat my ally on kills and objective damage with Fenix.

Your time would be better spent offering feedback on how he can be made to feel better to play, which is one area where there definitely is room for improvement. His mastery choices leave a lot to be desired, for instance, and he requires an absolutely obnoxious amount of upgrades to work.
Blizz has never changed their stats, did they? The have only made them cheaper.
Theres a huge difference between being able to afford 2-3 and 5-8 disruptors. You can still deal massive amounts of damage with a lesser amount of disruptors, yes, but due to their great unit cost + research expenses, their previous incarnation was something you tacked on to a late-game deathball when you were already well on your way to victory. Not exactly ideal.

I don't see how this can possibly be true with such low dps / supply.
DPS isnt an accurate measure of the power of a unit. What makes carriers so good is that once you've got them on the field, they will ever leave it again. They can siege up enemy strongholds non-stop while Fenix' other units would need to stop and regroup. If Fenix had immortals that were functionally immortal and never left the battlefield in the same manner as carriers did, and therefore could utilize their superior DPS in the same manner as carriers can, you would indeed be correct.

Fenix was designed from the ground up and given all the necessary tools to make tech switches. Actually, his default playstyle is a mix of air and ground units and he can easily afford it. Fenix doesn't "commit". That's where you're wasting massive potential.
If you go into a game with the intention of playing a 6-champion build, you'll want to start the game with the superior economic opener, which is either gateway into Kaldalis or robo into Taldarin. Either will clear the rocks at around the same time as 2x photon cannons, but without wasting 300 minerals on pylon 2x cannons (since for a 6 champ build you'd still want the champions researched, so its money well-spent). Except, if the enemy is a protoss or terran air composition, both Kaldalis, Taldarin and their respective production structures are all useless and you'll want to just let them die and replace them with carriers. You'll have wasted a ton of your early-game tech to get a useless champion onto the field, and will be playing the rest of the game catch-up in comparison to another player who just went with the standard early carrier build. Yeah, Fenix is great at switching tech trees, but you'll still be way behind than if you had just gone carriers.

That said, I don't see how scouts are a bad unit. They are the protoss equivalent of goliaths and with Fenix' economical bonuses they are even as easy to afford and replace. They still deal very decent damage (about the same as Carriers I think but less susceptible to armor) but they are much faster and a strong early to mid game unit where carriers are weak.
Scouts are a great unit, especially for Miner Evac and DoN. The problem is that they dont perform as well against the Protoss and Terran air armies that they are supposed to counter as some other commander's anti air options. Vikings have a range advantage on them and will pummel them while they're attacking other things, they're meh against mutas and phoenixes, but the unit they really struggle with (in my opinion) is the BC simply due to how they are almost doomed to get yamato'ed to death - you can prevent some yamato shots from landing with good use of the arbiter, but you'll inevitably fail to catch them all, or you'll run out of energy on your arbiter and then from there you'll lose a signicant chunk of your scouts to every subsequent wave of BC's. As scouts and carriers are Fenix' only good answers to BC's, it seems wrong that scouts should have such a high mortality rate against the two terran comps where you really want to build a ton of scouts.

I suppose they're alright against protoss air, but its not as if they're an amazingly perfect counter, either.
07/22/2017 10:14 AMPosted by Aron
Except, if the enemy is a protoss or terran air composition, both Kaldalis, Taldarin and their respective production structures are all useless and you'll want to just let them die and replace them with carriers.

Why would they be useless?
Adepts are perfect against terran air because more than half their air units are light. Immortals cannot attack air but they still deal damage against structures, the objective and hybrids. There is no harm in having your 2-6 initial immortals around. You need at least one robo to make observers anyway.

07/22/2017 10:14 AMPosted by Aron
Vikings have a range advantage on them and will pummel them while they're attacking other things, they're meh against mutas and phoenixes, but the unit they really struggle with (in my opinion) is the BC simply due to how they are almost doomed to get yamato'ed to death - you can prevent some yamato shots from landing with good use of the arbiter, but you'll inevitably fail to catch them all, or you'll run out of energy on your arbiter and then from there you'll lose a signicant chunk of your scouts to every subsequent wave of BC's.

Of course scouts are less effective against banshees. That's why you have adepts. And I don't really recall any absurd scout mortality rate from my games. The one who should and often actually does eat the yamatos is Mojo. It takes like 2-3 yamatos to bring him down and do you really think throwing 2-3 yamatos for a unit that costs only180 minerals and is replaced in like 10 seconds is a good trade?
Scouts are very good at overwhelming BCs and they quickly outtrade vikings as well with protective fields and Mojo's area damage.

You say they don't perform well in these scenarios but then why do I have a different experience? I'm not a good player and I don't get carried either.
07/22/2017 06:40 AMPosted by Escadin

It sounds like everyone gave up on his units before they even tried and knee-jerked to the time tested mass carrier build of Karax.

I have tried both builds, and I believe mass carriers is the superior build in most situations, for 3 main reasons: higher effective dps, higher sustainability and ability to counter nearly all situations (including flagship air units near thrashers/shards/slivers). Notable exceptions are oblivion express map (since immortals are able to have higher sustained dps here) and all-ground comps. The recent buffs have not changed this situation, except by making disruptors more viable.

07/22/2017 07:48 AMPosted by Aron
Fenix' Disruptors are really great after their buffs, yes, but the rest of Fenix' units are hardly amazing.

Blizz has never changed their stats, did they? The have only made them cheaper.

This is a significant buff, by allowing disruptors to come to the battlefield much earlier, esp when gas is in short supply with the many researches required for a 6-champion build.


I don't see how this can possibly be true with such low dps / supply.

This isn't true. Carriers have comparable dps/supply as other Fenix units, since most of his units are vanilla versions without significant upgrades (except disruptors). Since carriers are able to lay siege to enemy defence earlier and sustain the siege with far lower losses, they have better effective dps.

Legionnaire: 6.7
Adept (including shade): 3.6 (7.1 vs light)
Immortal: 3.5 (8.6 vs armoured)
Colossus: 3.0
Scout (Air): 3.7 (7.5 vs light)
Scout (Ground): 3.2 (6.3 vs light)
Carrier: 4.4


Fenix isn't Karax.
Fenix was designed from the ground up and given all the necessary tools to make tech switches. Actually, his default playstyle is a mix of air and ground units and he can easily afford it. Fenix doesn't "commit". That's where you're wasting massive potential.

Fenix is designed to have a mixed army, but his current state does not dictate that as the optimum build in most situations, bar future buffs (hopefully). That is the problem.

07/22/2017 08:40 AMPosted by Escadin

I agree that he is weaker geared on the AA front than on the ground front (a re-occouring theme with many commanders for some reason). I also don't understand why Bliz is so prone to just ruining things that were perfectly fine. It was so obvious they weren't just going to "reduce a-move awesomeness of Carriers", they outrightd removed their ability to tank which was perfectly fine. Typical Blizz really, just like when they changed volatile infested to bio upgrades or how they ruined swarmhosts in the same patch.

That said, I don't see how scouts are a bad unit. They are the protoss equivalent of goliaths and with Fenix' economical bonuses they are even as easy to afford and replace. They still deal very decent damage (about the same as Carriers I think but less susceptible to armor) but they are much faster and a strong early to mid game unit where carriers are weak.

If you are trying to compare Fenix's scouts to Swann's goliaths, I will do the comparisons for you. Note that both units have pretty similar costs and supply (goliath is slightly cheaper).

(first number for scout, second number for goliath, assuming full upgrades)

DPS (vs air armoured): 27.2, 29.3
DPS (vs air light): 16.0, 18.7
DPS (vs ground armoured): 11.2, 14.0
DPS (vs ground light): 20.7, 14.0

Assuming Terran shadow comp with maruaders (ground armoured) and liberators/BC (air armoured):

Total DPS: 27.2 (against armoured air), 43.3 (against armoured air+ground)

===

Armour: 3, 4
HP: 250, 180
Range: 5, 8 or 10 (vs ground or air for goliath)

In addition, goliaths have science vessel healing+defensive matrix (200 shield) to protect them. On the other hand, scouts are prone to aoe damage and are among the first units to take damage due to their low range.
This is a significant buff, by allowing disruptors to come to the battlefield much earlier, esp when gas is in short supply with the many researches required for a 6-champion build.

Point taken. But I think they were a strong unit before that. Just harder to get.



I don't see how this can possibly be true with such low dps / supply.

This isn't true. Carriers have comparable dps/supply as other Fenix units, since most of his units are vanilla versions without significant upgrades (except disruptors). Since carriers are able to lay siege to enemy defence earlier and sustain the siege with far lower losses, they have better effective dps.

Legionnaire: 6.7
Adept (including shade): 3.6 (7.1 vs light)
Immortal: 3.5 (8.6 vs armoured)
Colossus: 3.0
Scout (Air): 3.7 (7.5 vs light)
Scout (Ground): 3.2 (6.3 vs light)
Carrier: 4.4

That list doesn't seem to support your point at all. Legionaires and Adepts out-dps carriers. So do immortals and colossi if you have the courtesy to use them for what they were made: area damage.
Scouts kinda surprise me. They should have a destinct advantage imo but even so, you cannot sell me that scouts fall out of the sky at a faster rate than interceptors and (again) they're much less susceptible to armor because their damage isn't devide into a million tiny hits. Who deals more "effective" damage here isn't that obvious.


Fenix is designed to have a mixed army, but his current state does not dictate that as the optimum build in most situations, bar future buffs (hopefully). That is the problem.

As mention above I don't see why that would be true. Even if you count in that at some point units stop stacking at full efficiency because they compete for space in their cirumference, there aren't enough light / armored /ground / air targets around to justify them as counter picks etc. You can still just build and mix those units up to that point and fill the remaining supply with carriers.
I also don't advocate a 6 champions build. Too many upgrades, too little supply. 4 is enough imo.

On top, all of his production facilities cost pretty much the same, he gets a discount on all units and upgrades and his champion mechanics encourage building a variety.
In short there is a lot of synergy and additional dps to be had. If that doesn't improve your build then I don't know what does.

07/22/2017 11:14 AMPosted by raincamp
If you are trying to compare Fenix's scouts to Swann's goliaths, I will do the comparisons for you. Note that both units have pretty similar costs and supply (goliath is slightly cheaper).

No I'm not. I'm just saying they fill roughly the same role and cost bracket (relative to their races) and that it's not unheard of for this particular bracket/ unit type to ask for replacements every now and then.
I am fully aware that Swann's Goliaths are semi OP powerhouses but I am also aware that he has little else to rely on. They make the backbone of his army which isn't exactly true for Fenix scouts. Fenix backbone are his hero suits.
While you can certainly play him that way, goliaths are far from being the backbone of Swann's army. Siege tanks with hercules transports are Swann's true army - adding on goliaths should only be as an afterthought, save against a heavy air enemy. Goliath's are a good general-purpose unit, which is why it is such a disappointment that scouts are only comparatively mediocre in their role as Fenix' specialized anti-air unit. Case in point, scouts work better on DoN/Miner Evac than they do countering an enemy air comp.
\
That list doesn't seem to support your point at all. Legionaires and Adepts out-dps carriers. So do immortals and colossi if you have the courtesy to use them for what they were made: area damage.
Scouts kinda surprise me. They should have a destinct advantage imo but even so, you cannot sell me that scouts fall out of the sky at a faster rate than interceptors and (again) they're much less susceptible to armor because their damage isn't devide into a million tiny hits. Who deals more "effective" damage here isn't that obvious.

[/quote]
Legionnaires, like many other tier-one units, are high in dps/supply or dps/cost. Likewise (with notable exception of marines and certain zealot variants), they die easily due to their melee range and/or low hp. Other commanders use their mineral dump on their tier-one units, but it is more viable for Fenix to go directly to higher-tier units and building extra production structures as a mineral dump instead.

Adepts don't out-dps carriers all the time, only against light units. That's my point, carriers indeed have comparable dps output versus other units of his. Their dps/supply lies somewhere in between the normal and bonus attack of other units. This is unlike the case of Raynor's BCs, which have far lower dps/supply than his other units, especially stimmed bio units.
I think the changes they made to the Praetor Armor Suit and the Strong Heart upgrade at the Forge were the only changes Fenix needed. It feels so much better to throw the Praetor suit into an attack wave now and be nearly certain that Talandar will survive long enough to use up his whole energy bar.

Personally, my main Fenix army comp is always Gateway/Robo, with a rare dip into Stargate tech for Clolarion and Mojo; going mass Carriers isn't very fun to me, so I don't use that build.

Join the Conversation

Return to Forum