koadah
Joined: Mar 30, 2005
|
 Posted:
Dec 09, 2011 - 10:05 |
 
|
| VoodooMike wrote: | | koadah wrote: | | But our goblins are missing key skills so I'm not sure it's fair to call them 'real' goblin teams. Our ogre teams may have 10 ogres. Is that a 'real' ogre team? |
That is a valid point, yes, but the numbers agree with everyone's intuition on this matter: goblins and ogres are both crappy teams, regardless. Goblins have the missing skills in the Cyanide version, and they still perform poorly. Certainly in pretty much everyone's definition, both are tier 3 teams. |
"The numbers agree with everyone's intuition"? Are you missing a smiley there? 
| VoodooMike wrote: |
| koadah wrote: | | e.g. Do orcs look bad because they are often recommended to rookie coaches? Do woods look good because only good coaches can keep them alive long enough to play a lot of games? |
It is highly unlikely that either of those things is significantly skewing the data, given the large number of cases being examined. We specifically don't try to control for everything, which is something people often don't get - in order to have numbers that are applicable to the topic in general you have to avoid doing so.
What your objection is, in essence, is that these numbers might not apply in a perfect world, which is fine, because this is the real world, and those are the actual numbers from the actual results. |
It's not an objection I'm just interested. The old CR didn't really work and I haven't got around to creating my own.
| VoodooMike wrote: |
| koadah wrote: | | You'll have to wait until the new CR formula has stabilised to look into that. It hasn't been worth doing before. |
From what I hear, the CR formula has changed a dozen times, which, no offense to the people creating it, sounds like they're just throwing things at a problem and seeing what will stick. Unless there's a very well reasoned system in place then what is really being developed is a system that will create a number that is in tune with people's intuition, and that's not really a helpful measure - it won't be about the truth, it'll be about falling into line with opinion.
Maybe I'm wrong about it, but I don't see why you'd need to continually change a system if it had a sound statistical and mathematical basis. |
I think that a lot of the changes are due to dealing with the various exploits.
| VoodooMike wrote: |
| koadah wrote: | | That's the point really. Not that this data is wrong but that it doesn't tell us what we want to know. i.e. how would the teams do in a non TV matched environment. |
FUMBBL is not that environment, so I'm not sure why you'd be focused on that question. The vast, vast majority of games played on FUMBBL are, and always have been, based on TV matching in one form or another. B sets them up for you, R restricts TV difference. L has less than half the games that R does, R has less than half the games B does.
|
Though the past is history.
The new rules mean that games with larger TV difference should be much more viable. [R] has now relaxed it's restrictions. I am enjoying playing [L] with no restrictions. The Majors and big leagues have no or few restrictions.
Though the bulk of games are played in open [R]/[B ] there is nothing competitive to play for except CR which many if not most are not too bothered about.
If the top teams at 2000 don't play the best teams at 1500 then we don't really know who are the 'best' teams. |
_________________
[SL] + Official Stunty teams. Progression KO. Old & new teams welcome. 29th May! |
|
PurpleChest
Joined: Oct 25, 2003
|
well, with VM is unusually comnbative mood, even for him, i'll step up.
VoodooMike, I have noted your antipathy for kinesthetic words and generally human descriptions, you deride 'eyeballing' 'gut feelings' and 'arm waving'. mostly choosing phsyical actions by human beings to describe things you feel nagatively about.
Conversely you approach numbers and statistics in a very different tone. About 'correctness' 'truth' and the utter imutable rightness of your stance in the face of the beliefs of others. Their are aspects of your faith here that bordewr on the illogicality of religion.
I have always councelled that your clear statistical knoiwledge be allied to some fundamental psychology, thqat without understanding the human factor, the data becomes cloudy and conclusions drawn arbitrary, but maybe some NLP research would interest you as well, and aid your ability to communicte and persuade.
As a tip, most people kind of like humans. And describing bad things in human terms, and good things in computery/messianic terms, tends to put peoples backs up, and paint you as unempathetic, cold and lacking social skills.
What good is being so utterly right, if no one will listen? |
_________________
Barbarus hic ego sum, quia non intelligor illis -Ovid
I am a barbarian here because i am not understood by anyone |
|
koadah
Joined: Mar 30, 2005
|
| Posted:
Dec 09, 2011 - 12:00 |
|
|
PurpleChest
Joined: Oct 25, 2003
|
Where this becomes relevant again is where in BB gut feeling and intuition triumph over statistics.
the numbers, i am told, show quite conclusively that Clawpomb isnt so bad, and that without ageing teams are actually keeping players longer. that attrition has slowed slightly. Yet this ignores the pyschology of clawpomb. the feeling of it being unanswerable and unstoppable. this (the psychology) creates a huge impact in play and response to play that the mere numbers can never find, support or show. |
_________________
Barbarus hic ego sum, quia non intelligor illis -Ovid
I am a barbarian here because i am not understood by anyone |
|
uuni
Joined: Mar 12, 2010
|
| Posted:
Dec 09, 2011 - 12:34 |
|
| VoodooMike wrote: | | uuni wrote: | | In this set, typical driver can be said to be better driver than average. |
The median is not the "typical" case. In a normal distribution it is the same as the mean, in a unimodal skewed distribution comparing the median and mean will tell you the direction in which the data is skewed. In those cases, the median tends to be less affected by outliers than the mean. |
Are you certain you are not attacking windmills? If you want to explain your argument with less jargon, your point may become clearer.
| VoodooMike wrote: | | You are, once again, everything I meant when I referred to wikipedia not being an education. |
Oh dear. If you want to have fruitful conversation, please refrain from personal attacks. Most of the times it is of no use to focus on the negatives but much joy can be found when focusing the shared common points of view and developing them further. Also please note, that there is a code of conduct to follow here on forums.
I am still certain that, you, VoodooMike, have a lot of interesting things to contribute to the community, and look forward to your next findings. I find many of your findings quite interesting and insightful. I would still hope that you could be less aggressive with you attempts at discussion, but then again, I hope that from many others, too. |
|
|
koadah
Joined: Mar 30, 2005
|
| Posted:
Dec 09, 2011 - 12:47 |
|
| PurpleChest wrote: | | the numbers, i am told, show quite conclusively that Clawpomb isnt so bad |
It was probably me that said that cas were down on LRB4.
I would also say that Box games are well up on LRB4 as a percentage of Fumbbl games. So it's not as if people are running away from it.
The stats appear to me to show that on average over all games the C-POMB races are not overpowered.
The stats do NOT show how C-POMB affects games. They don't show which players had which skills in which games and what they did. Or even the number of KOs caused.
We could probably get this data by downloading and interrogating the replay files. But for now it's still pretty much gut feel.
It's just like ageing really. The numbers you want are how many hate it, how many really hate it, how many love it etc. Just different numbers. |
_________________
[SL] + Official Stunty teams. Progression KO. Old & new teams welcome. 29th May! |
|
DukeTyrion
Joined: Feb 18, 2004
|
| Posted:
Dec 09, 2011 - 13:23 |
|
I have played various games over the years, and the thing that people don't seem to like is when all control is taken away from them.
With Wood Elves and Rats you normally feel you have a chance somewhere, even with only 3 players on the pitch. But when a normal team (Humans, Orcs, Undead) play against a ClawMB team and lose 3 players in turn 1, they often feel they have lost all control and no longer have the chance to swing the game, even with good play.
It's obviously just an opinion, but I think that is why people struggle with the whole concept of the ClawMB teams. Also, it's not just about the casualties, the number of KO's obviously has a huge impact on the game too. Facing ClawMB with 11 players is one thing, doing it with 6 is another altogether.
BTW, I am not saying I personally have any issues with ClawMB teams, just the feeling I get from other players.
(apologies if this was a little off track) |
|
|
King_Ghidra
Joined: Sep 14, 2009
|
| Posted:
Dec 09, 2011 - 13:27 |
|
I think the measure here to define the tier concept is interesting, as it brings in the all-important factor that teams don't just win in isolation, they win versus other teams/races (sounds dumb, but is actually very important).
That said, in terms of pure win% do we have any correlation with VM's tiers?
So this list maps win % only (in the pure sense, including draws in the total measured against):
47.12 Amazon
46.74 Skaven
46.35 Wood Elf
45.35 Lizardmen
45.11 Dark Elf
44.63 Chaos dwarf
43.95 Undead
42.45 Elf
41.68 Norse
41.37 necro
41.24 Chaos
41.16 Dwarf
40.90 High Elf
40.00 Human
[others below 40%]
Or to look at it another way, not losing (Win%+Draw%):
67.49 Amazon
66.01 Chaos Dwarf
65.34 Skaven
65 Undead
64.49 Lizardmen
63.66 Dark Elf
63.62 Wood Elf
63.01 Dwarf
62.63 Necro
62.5 Chaos
61.06 Norse
60.1 Nurgle
[others less than 60%]
Here, the VM Top Tier teams of Amazons, Chaos Dwarves, Skaven and Lizardmen all seem to prove their worth. Dwarves less so.
Dark Elves, Wood Elves and Undead are certainly in the mix. |
|
|
dode74
Joined: Aug 14, 2009
|
| Posted:
Dec 09, 2011 - 13:35 |
|
Win% was defined by the BBRC as (wins + draws/2)/(games played). Bringing in other measures isn't particularly helpful as it was this standard against which "balance" was measured. |
|
|
blader4411
Joined: Oct 18, 2009
|
| Posted:
Dec 09, 2011 - 13:49 |
|
| dode74 wrote: | | Win% was defined by the BBRC as (wins + draws/2)/(games played). Bringing in other measures isn't particularly helpful as it was this standard against which "balance" was measured. |
And we all know what a great job the BBRC balancing did when applied to the massive league that is FUMBBL 
-Blader |
|
|
koadah
Joined: Mar 30, 2005
|
| Posted:
Dec 09, 2011 - 13:57 |
|
| blader4411 wrote: | | dode74 wrote: | | Win% was defined by the BBRC as (wins + draws/2)/(games played). Bringing in other measures isn't particularly helpful as it was this standard against which "balance" was measured. |
And we all know what a great job the BBRC balancing did when applied to the massive league that is FUMBBL
-Blader |
The Black Box data falls pretty much within the BBRCs goals. |
_________________
[SL] + Official Stunty teams. Progression KO. Old & new teams welcome. 29th May! |
|
King_Ghidra
Joined: Sep 14, 2009
|
| Posted:
Dec 09, 2011 - 14:06 |
|
| dode74 wrote: | | Win% was defined by the BBRC as (wins + draws/2)/(games played). Bringing in other measures isn't particularly helpful as it was this standard against which "balance" was measured. |
My post was entirely about providing another perspective, so I'm pleased to see you agree I succeeded.
As far as the BBRC, personally I hate over-convoluted measurements, and I would be interested to hear how the BBRC definition provides any greater clarity of statistical perception than anything I have posted above.
FUMBBL measures a coaches win % in the American sports style, wins as a % of (total games-draws) so there is a third measure of success for you.
When it comes to saying 'what is better?', more sources and interpretations are better imho. Or to take the De Bono approach - should we keep digging the same hole deeper or dig another hole? |
|
|
JimmyFantastic
Joined: Feb 06, 2007
|
| Posted:
Dec 09, 2011 - 14:12 |
|
I think that the BBRC is pretty irrelevant really.
However I do like the win% that they used as I think ignoring draws altogether is a mistake. |
_________________
Pull down the veil - actively bad for the hobby! |
|
koadah
Joined: Mar 30, 2005
|
| Posted:
Dec 09, 2011 - 14:18 |
|
|
VoodooMike
Joined: Nov 07, 2010
|
| Posted:
Dec 09, 2011 - 14:26 |
|
| gotte wrote: | | The CR formula has been changed becuase it only was for ranked before. |
That's silly. Why should the CR change depending on which division it is being applied to? If it needs to then again I question the validity of the formula.
| gotte wrote: | | The importance of non tv matched results is because what everyone in the end cares about is closed-leagues and tournaments. |
Not me. The vast majority of games being played on the net are not tournament/closed-league games. I suspect the internet has more games being played than tabletop owing to it being vastly easier to organize an online game than a tabletop game. Unless that isn't true, that means the majority of all Blood Bowl games being played are NOT of the variety you're talking about.
| gotte wrote: | | Seeing as this is what this game was actually created for. Not the huge blackbox thingy we got going on. |
I don't care what the creators intended, I care what is actually happening. The game wasn't created for computer play, but here it is. The huge blackbox thingy represents, I believe, the place this (and most games) are going - fast and easy to find someone to play games with, without needing to organize an afternoon to do it in.
| gotte wrote: | | And this means that any actually rebalancing that might be done down the line. Should be made with that in mind. We can't balance teams for blackbox and then see that the game is fucked for the rest of the world. |
The game is effectively "fucked" for every situation because it was not designed to be balanced around anything. It is not presently balanced for any sort of play unless the two teams are the same race and the same TV. Since that's the case, I don't see why we should worry about what people might balance it around in future.
| dode74 wrote: | | Leagues, tournaments, anywhere where matching is not done by TV. |
What percentage of games played on the internet do you believe fall into those categories?
| dode74 wrote: | | That was only true for small TV gaps with any confidence. Similarly, it didn't take racial factors into account - we can only say that TV was a factor in that analysis, not anything else. |
That doesn't matter at all. Why? because it DOES cover all games, including all matchups between any particular race and any other particular race at any TV difference that was covered. The racial aspects come out in the wash because of that. This is what I meant in my earlier post about people not understanding that you don't want to try to control for everything.
| dode74 wrote: | | The design of the game was such that certain races were designed to do better in certain matchups if they carried inducements than if they did not (I can find you a quote from Galak somewhere if needs be). An example would be against high-TV Chaos, where many teams would likely benefit more from a couple of apoths and babes than they would from some nugatory skills. |
The more I look at actual numbers the more I suspect the BBRC just made shit up as they went along, without any deep "design" principles... or have you not noticed that the only numbers that ever seem to really agree with Galak's statements are his own? Do your numbers from Cyanide support his statement without any post-hoc caveats like "well, the game wasn't designed for this so..."
Now, my question to you... and it applies to Cyanide's current events: if we agree that TV matching is significantly different than league or tournament play, then is a tournament really a rational way to decide the ultimate "winning team" or "winning coach" from a set of TV matched open leagues?
| koadah wrote: | | "The numbers agree with everyone's intuition"? Are you missing a smiley there? |
I hate graphical smileys, so I'm content to let people just assume I say everything with a stern look on my face.
That said, I don't think its a particularly good objection to the data as a whole that the bottom-of-the-barrel teams aren't properly implemented. Even in places where they are, they're still the bottom.
| PurpleChest wrote: | | VoodooMike, I have noted your antipathy for kinesthetic words and generally human descriptions, you deride 'eyeballing' 'gut feelings' and 'arm waving'. mostly choosing phsyical actions by human beings to describe things you feel nagatively about. |
Also, I'm a Leo, and I enjoy candle-lit dinners and long walks on the beach. Topics like this (which are mathematics) are things you should think your way through, not feel your way through, so yes, I have great disdain for people who imagine intuition is of serious utility.
| PurpleChest wrote: | | Conversely you approach numbers and statistics in a very different tone. About 'correctness' 'truth' and the utter imutable rightness of your stance in the face of the beliefs of others. Their are aspects of your faith here that bordewr on the illogicality of religion. |
Is that 5 a 5? Why yes, yes it is. That's quite immutable. Now, that said, if you have a good argument as to why things should be interpreted differently then that's great, we can go there... but all I tend to see is people saying "I don't know what is right, but I think I'll know it when I see it, and this isn't it".
That's a complete logic fail - its never illogical to trust in numbers that can be checked.
| PurpleChest wrote: | | I have always councelled that your clear statistical knoiwledge be allied to some fundamental psychology, thqat without understanding the human factor, the data becomes cloudy and conclusions drawn arbitrary, but maybe some NLP research would interest you as well, and aid your ability to communicte and persuade. |
No, the human factor clouds things. When you think how facts are presented in any way affects the validity of those facts, you are being a moron. Truth is not a democracy - you can work to muddy the waters because you're butt-hurt about not feeling enough respect, but that isn't changing the truth, that's just deliberately obfuscating it because you're a sensitive child that is unable to separate the message from the messenger.
| PurpleChest wrote: | | As a tip, most people kind of like humans. And describing bad things in human terms, and good things in computery/messianic terms, tends to put peoples backs up, and paint you as unempathetic, cold and lacking social skills. |
Again, so what? Who exactly are you hurting if you refuse to hear the truth because you don't like who is speaking it and how? Give that some thought.
| PurpleChest wrote: | | What good is being so utterly right, if no one will listen? |
Uh, unless I somehow need you to do something for me then what possible relevance is your listening? I am presenting a compilation of data with explanation, based on my interest in the subject, in case anyone else happens to be interested as well.
| PurpleChest wrote: | | the numbers, i am told, show quite conclusively that Clawpomb isnt so bad, and that without ageing teams are actually keeping players longer. that attrition has slowed slightly. Yet this ignores the pyschology of clawpomb. the feeling of it being unanswerable and unstoppable. this (the psychology) creates a huge impact in play and response to play that the mere numbers can never find, support or show. |
Watch this - it covers your entire uh... point
| uuni wrote: | | Are you certain you are not attacking windmills? If you want to explain your argument with less jargon, your point may become clearer. |
That you're calling "skew" and "modality" jargon proves my point. Like in the last stats thread, you are mistaking net skimming and wikiology for understanding... and you don't even spend much time trying to understand what you read.
| King_Ghidra wrote: | | That said, in terms of pure win% do we have any correlation with VM's tiers? |
The reason I used a count of races that a team is good against versus straight win percentage, is that win percentage is deeply affected by the distribution of teams - if there happens to be a disproportionally high number of Dwarf teams, then the win percentage of a team that is strong against Dwarves will have an inflated win percentage. The actual win percentages for each race are included in the text files.
If we do work from straight win percentages, wood elves definitely do find their place in tier 1... but then again, if we actually use the same ranges the BBRC did, pretty much everyone is a tier 1 race (45-55% wins), which negates the use of declaring tiers to begin with. |
|
|
|
|
| |
SWL Season CI
Search
