Sutherlands
Joined: Aug 01, 2009
|
 Posted:
Dec 14, 2011 - 02:50 |
 
|
| VoodooMike wrote: | | Either you are being disingenuous or you're somehow unaware that one need not directly experience something to know about it. |
Ah, so it's just one of those "of course they make those arguments, it's a fundie!" Say no more. |
|
|
VoodooMike
Joined: Nov 07, 2010
|
| Posted:
Dec 14, 2011 - 03:08 |
|
| Sutherlands wrote: | | Ah, so it's just one of those "of course they make those arguments, it's a fundie!" Say no more. |
Large numbers of them make that argument, yes - the internet is a great place to interact with the 99% of any group that has no good grasp on their own position. That said, having taken an entire university course on the intelligent design debate, I can readily say that none of the arguments stray particularly far from that, they're just worded better, and do a better job of obscuring the ignorance. |
|
|
VoodooMike
Joined: Nov 07, 2010
|
| Posted:
Dec 15, 2011 - 18:07 |
|
| dode74 wrote: | | All the data R, B and L (and perhaps what we can get from Cyanide). Then we need enough data to get better margins of error. I'm willing to wait for that. |
A thought on data - as I recall from BBD, there was a java based AI vs. AI BB implementation. You could create tentative data to support the idea that inducements will do (whatever it is they're supposed to do, once you've come up with a firm definition) at the TV difference (to be determined) across a large number of simulated games.
While the AI may not be as good as a human player can be, the skill level should balance itself out given that both sides will be equally sub-human. Thus, it will come down to straight mechanical differences between the teams that you specify and, of course, the inducements being applied. |
|
|
dode74
Joined: Aug 14, 2009
|
| Posted:
Dec 15, 2011 - 18:29 |
|
Effective choice and use of inducements is required though. Having a wizard and using it at the right time to be able to exploit it effectively are different things. I appreciate that coach skill should be removed from these things but I have no idea how good that AI actually is - would it completely waste a wizard by blasting an empty square or would it use it as well as an average coach? |
|
|
Kelkka
Joined: Aug 14, 2009
|
| Posted:
Dec 15, 2011 - 18:50 |
|
| VoodooMike wrote: | | the internet is a great place to interact with the 99% of any group that has no good grasp on their own position. |
How did you come up with that number? Gut feeling maybe? Or perhaps eyeballing?  |
|
|
polardragon
Joined: May 07, 2011
|
| Posted:
Dec 15, 2011 - 19:00 |
|
I doubt it was a graph.  |
_________________
  |
|
VoodooMike
Joined: Nov 07, 2010
|
| Posted:
Dec 15, 2011 - 19:01 |
|
| kelkka wrote: | | How did you come up with that number? Gut feeling maybe? Or perhaps eyeballing? |
I'm generalizing, which all the non-douchebags knew intuitively. I guess the fact that you didn't is further support that intuition is not to be relied on? |
|
|
garyt1
Joined: Mar 12, 2011
|
| Posted:
Dec 15, 2011 - 19:19 |
|
It's long past time for you play some games here Mike if you are gonna keep analysing aspects of the site. It might even help you (or you might ENJOY it). |
_________________
“A wise man can learn more from a foolish question than a fool can learn from a wise answer.” |
|
polardragon
Joined: May 07, 2011
|
| Posted:
Dec 15, 2011 - 19:32 |
|
[quote="VoodooMike"]| dode74 wrote: | | A thought on data - as I recall from BBD, there was a java based AI vs. AI BB implementation. |
I believe you mean GrodBot. Check out Grod's blog for links and notes.
I have used it and while its not too bad its not the most original opponent. To be fair I believe his intention was to have a BotBowl to hone the AI through competition.
The base client uses the LRB5 rule-set so win/loss results may not be valid for CRP. |
_________________
|
|
VoodooMike
Joined: Nov 07, 2010
|
| Posted:
Dec 15, 2011 - 19:35 |
|
| garyt1 wrote: | | It's long past time for you play some games here Mike if you are gonna keep analysing aspects of the site. It might even help you (or you might ENJOY it). |
I need the tribal tattoos if I'm going to take a mate? I can't lead the fremen if I won't ride the shaitan? Seriously, give it a bit of thought. I've addressed the reason I haven't played any games, and at this point the amount of nattering insistence based on absolutely nothing has started making it a point of principle.
I'm a numbers and theory person - that's what interests me. No amount of playing individual matches is going to change the numbers or the theory, which seems to be the totally unfounded belief among people whose intuition disagrees with the numbers that come from this site.
So, if I can't be "one of the gang" unless I do whatever token action seems to be required, and the gang is thus far defined as people who are aggressively xenophobic and hostile to anything but mass posting of the word "PIE", then I'll wear that exclusion as a badge of personal pride, thanks. Do keep in mind that there are plenty of people here (many of whom have played plenty of matches) who have no such hang-ups, and those are the folks I'm interested in discussing with owing to the fact that they're the only ones who seem capable of rational discussion. |
|
|
Kelkka
Joined: Aug 14, 2009
|
| Posted:
Dec 15, 2011 - 19:39 |
|
| VoodooMike wrote: | | kelkka wrote: | | How did you come up with that number? Gut feeling maybe? Or perhaps eyeballing? |
I'm generalizing, which all the non-douchebags knew intuitively. I guess the fact that you didn't is further support that intuition is not to be relied on? |
Classy to call me douchebag 
If you are so pro stat-guy who you like to present yourself, you wouldn't really do rookie mistakes like that. Numbers are serious business to you apparently when they benefit your own goals or when they give you a tool to smack others. Is your ivory tower crumbling down and all what is left is fake hypocrite? Angry fake hypocrite to be precise. |
|
|
VoodooMike
Joined: Nov 07, 2010
|
| Posted:
Dec 15, 2011 - 19:39 |
|
| polardragon wrote: | | I have used it and while its not too bad its not the most original opponent. To be fair I believe his intention was to have a BotBowl to hone the AI through competition. |
Someone saying "its not too bad" is actually a pretty glowing endorsement, all things considered. When the question is about the mechanical aspect of the game then not too bad seems plenty good enough for tentative data when human-played data is very unlikely to ever exist.
| polardragon wrote: | | The base client uses the LRB5 rule-set so win/loss results may not be valid for CRP. |
That, on the other hand, is a major problem as far as using it for any even remotely valid data. I don't think we have enough LRB5 data to use to compare it to our CRP data to see if things line up well enough to use LRB5 data as predictive for CRP performance. If we did, it would be doable. |
|
|
PainState
Joined: Apr 04, 2007
|
| Posted:
Dec 15, 2011 - 19:44 |
|
| VoodooMike wrote: | | kelkka wrote: | | How did you come up with that number? Gut feeling maybe? Or perhaps eyeballing? |
I'm generalizing, which all the non-douchebags knew intuitively. I guess the fact that you didn't is further support that intuition is not to be relied on? |
This is interesting...something that has been on my chest from the way start of all this.
So as I understand it. The CLPOMB issue was run through the calculator. A desired result, meaning amount of % CAS/KO were all within desired ranges, fell into the parameters that were desired for said goal.
But my hang up is this. Did not intuition come into play at all? the old eye ball test? As the hundreds of beta testers are running their matches. Did know one "cheese" the combo. At no point did noone stand up and say wait a minute? The math might be right. The computer test model says it is good to go but out in the field it is run amock?
When Beta tester #89 was beat up and sent to the hospital because he showed up with a Chaos Pact team at TV 1500 with only CLPOMB and no block, did no one even look in to it? 
In the end I feel that the math failed in this specific instance...what was needed was the old fashioned eye ball test and worry about what was happening in the "field" and not on the math calculators.
Ok, off my chest now. |
_________________
Comish of the:  |
|
VoodooMike
Joined: Nov 07, 2010
|
| Posted:
Dec 15, 2011 - 19:47 |
|
| Kelkka wrote: | | Classy to call me douchebag |
Oh, I don't think you're a douchebag for that - I'm quite certain you knew as well as anyone else that it was generalizing, you're just trying to be argumentative for no apparent goal other than to pick a fight. That'd be why I think you are.
| Kelkka wrote: | | If you are so pro stat-guy who you like to present yourself, you wouldn't really do rookie mistakes like that. Numbers are serious business to you apparently when they benefit your own goals or when they give you a tool to smack others. Is your ivory tower crumbling down and all what is left is fake hypocrite? Very Happy Angry fake hypocrite to be precise. |
Being a numbers person doesn't make someone stupid or incapable of hyperbole or irony - the idea that it does is stupid. When working with numbers for statistical analysis precision is important - when making abstractions in casual conversation precision is unimportant. Statisticians still say to their kids "I've told you a million times not to do that", not "I've told you, by my count, 42 times not to do that" as you seem to imagine they should, lest their "ivory towers come crashing down".
Anyone incapable of making the distinction probably has trouble tying their shoes, and is on government support owing to their developmental defects. |
|
|
PainState
Joined: Apr 04, 2007
|
| Posted:
Dec 15, 2011 - 19:50 |
|
| VoodooMike wrote: | | Anyone incapable of making the distinction probably has trouble tying their shoes, and is on government support owing to their developmental defects. |
WOWZA!!!! and they have free govt internet hook up in their free apartment, playing on a free Blood Bowl sight.
 |
_________________
Comish of the: |
|
|
|
SWL Season 100!
Search
