40 coaches online • Server time: 15:05
Forum Chat
Log in
Recent Forum Topics goto Post Secret League Americ...goto Post DOTP Season 4goto Post Skittles' Centu...
SearchSearch 
Post new topic   Reply to topic
View previous topic Log in to check your private messages View next topic
koadah



Joined: Mar 30, 2005

Post   Posted: Dec 05, 2011 - 00:20 Reply with quote Back to top

dode74 wrote:
Can I call it or what? Wink
http://fumbbl.com/index.php?name=PNphpBB2&file=viewtopic&p=489396#489396


Dwarves are barely over 50% overall and over 1600 they're nowhere. So Of course us flat earthers wouldn't consider them top tier. Wink

Zon's are not too clever past 1600 either. Only 3 zon teams made the 4th round of the FC and none went further than that.

We can all define top tier how ever we like. Some choose not to define it the same way as Mike.

_________________
Image
O[L]C 2016 Swiss! - April ---- All Stars - Anniversary Bowl - Teams of Stars - 13th March
dode74



Joined: Aug 14, 2009

Post   Posted: Dec 05, 2011 - 00:25 Reply with quote Back to top

I was talking more specifically about someone eventually deriding the info because he's not played any games here.
Quote:
We can all define top tier how ever we like. Some choose not to define it the same way as Mike.
Of course you can. At least VM actually defined it clearly though, whether people agree with the definition given or not. I know I've seen plenty of "of course race X are top tier" comments without a definition of "top tier".
Carnis



Joined: Feb 03, 2009

Post   Posted: Dec 05, 2011 - 00:34 Reply with quote Back to top

dode74 wrote:
I was talking more specifically about someone eventually deriding the info because he's not played any games here.
Quote:
We can all define top tier how ever we like. Some choose not to define it the same way as Mike.
Of course you can. At least VM actually defined it clearly though, whether people agree with the definition given or not. I know I've seen plenty of "of course race X are top tier" comments without a definition of "top tier".

Is it important though, the definition? He is outright bashful, if you disagree with his definition or interpretation, or it's relevance. Jimmyfantastic is right here ofc, but koadah's data seen earlier (with over racial win% at diff tvranges) has shown us earlier that there are extreme changes over the wide TV ranges, especially with some teams like norse & undead whose winrate drops from roughly 50% to closer towads 15-16% as an extreme example.

Nobody here is contesting that his data is somewhat relevant, but his racial tier definition may not be as accurate as he claims.

Overall, the huge gap between chaos & nurgle is still somewhat surprising, there is not much holding nurgle back at TV2100's. Any theories for why the difference keeps holding up at the high tv?

Is it because beast of nurgle is usually playing, while nobody plays with a minotaur making chaos more tv-efficient? Is it because rotters are just worse off than beastmen? What is the reason, I'm honestly a bit baffled that there's >5% tv-independent diff between the win% of these two almost identical teams.
Reisender



Joined: Sep 29, 2007

Post   Posted: Dec 05, 2011 - 01:32 Reply with quote Back to top

5439 = great allround players vs 4429... even with FA,regen and all, that is a big difference.
dode74



Joined: Aug 14, 2009

Post   Posted: Dec 05, 2011 - 02:09 Reply with quote Back to top

@ Carnis
Yes, the definition is important. The reason for that is that it changes the parameters - without definitions there is ambiguity, which leads to confusion and misunderstanding on a medium which isn't spectacularly conducive to easy communication (much nuance can be lost in the written word). For example, the tiering definitions set by the BBRC were at all TV ranges - so long as teams were getting in the bracket 45-55% overall then they were deemed to be balanced. VM used a different definition of the tiers, and within that definition his data is entirely accurate - you can disagree with the definition if you want, and I would argue that the default definition is that set by the BBRC, but while you can say you don't think his definition is valid (preferably backed up by an argument), you can't really say it's not accurate.

VM's data does exactly what the BBRC requires, though - it takes into account all of the games at all TVs they play at. He explicitly makes another important point when doing this: that the results are automatically weighted for the TVs games are actually played at. Chaos could be getting an 80% win% at 3500TV, but if they hardly ever play there does it really matter?

Yes, there are variations at different TVs for different teams - that's to be expected due to the different designs of the teams. Personally I think that good base stats combined with an ability to select effective stacking skills on lots of players will lead to a team which is good at high TV; in particular, more than one skill tree on linemen will help (Elven teams, Chaos; dwarves are let down by sub-par stats). That's a hypothesis though which VM's data may help to test a little. It may explain the difference between Chaos (good stats and skill choices on all players) and Nurgle (good Pestigors, BOB stats on the NWs but with good skill access, and rotters...) at high TV.
King_Ghidra



Joined: Sep 14, 2009

Post   Posted: Dec 07, 2011 - 17:57 Reply with quote Back to top

Regardless of the tier discussion, it was certainly very interesting to see the stats at least. There are some interesting and amusing figures in there, e.g.:

Halflings have a better record vs Chaos than Orcs do Very Happy

The Elven circle of dominance:
Dark Elves are poor against Wood Elves, Wood Elves are poor against Elves, Elves are poor against Dark Elves (and all of them beat High Elves Razz)

and with a bit of summarising, I make it:

108761 games in the sample, of which the most popular teams have played:

Chaos - 10896 - 10%
Chaos Dwarf - 8977 - 8.3%
Nurgle - 8259 - 7.6%
Dwarf - 7604 - 7%
Orc - 7246 - 6.7%
Chaos Pact - 6721 - 6.2%
Necro - 6072 - 5.6%
Norse - 5730 - 5.3%
Dark Elf - 5141 - 4.7%
Undead - 4728 - 4.3%

I didn't ever see the full data extract by Hitonagashi that VM refers to - is it available somewhere as a dump or is it some api thing?
Hitonagashi



Joined: Apr 09, 2006

Post   Posted: Dec 07, 2011 - 18:25 Reply with quote Back to top

King_Ghidra wrote:


I didn't ever see the full data extract by Hitonagashi that VM refers to - is it available somewhere as a dump or is it some api thing?


Here's the thread: http://fumbbl.com/index.php?name=PNphpBB2&file=viewtopic&t=20815

If you are a programmer, or reasonably confident, I've given the code, database and some wrappers to make accessing it relatively painless here:
https://github.com/Hitonagashi/fumbbl_games

The database is available as a Mongo database(which is stored in JSON format), or a MySQL one, and it's in the dumps folder.
Gotte



Joined: Dec 16, 2010

Post   Posted: Dec 07, 2011 - 18:45 Reply with quote Back to top

I think Nurgle are simply less tv efficient then what chaos is. And pestigors are overpriced at 80k. I do think that nurgle is a good team in a closed league setting. Where their abilitys would pay off in the long run. Chaos Warriors are better at their job from the start.

The whole important part of the team got regen. And they get replacements for free. But in 1 off games 80k collected cost for regen on 4 players, A higer cost on the warriors that I don't see the need for.. makes them worse.

In the end I think nurgle was wronged by the game developers simply because they were seen as a second/third tier team more for fun. Like goblins and halflings.
SvenS



Joined: Jul 07, 2007

Post   Posted: Dec 07, 2011 - 19:39 Reply with quote Back to top

Aint some of the disagreement here simply due to race tiers all across the different TVs are a lot (I suspect) different then tiers in the TV ranges the majors (which many aim for) are?

There is a lot of difference between playing random games and picking a good race to win, from picking a race aiming to win a major isnt it?

_________________
IL-S

SL
JimmyFantastic



Joined: Feb 06, 2007

Post   Posted: Dec 07, 2011 - 19:47 Reply with quote Back to top

Well Gotte the lack of apo and cheapness of the rotters counters the added cost of the Pestigors and NW somewhat so TV is fine for Nurgle really.
Maybe the fact that Nurgle actually use a big guy contributes to why they don't do so well. And of course Beastmen are a lot better than Rotters and CW are better than NW.
Also its not just 5439 vs 4429. NW stats are so bad they cant take +MA or +AG, but if a CW gets one of those he is amazing.

_________________
Pull down the veil - actively bad for the hobby!
PurpleChest



Joined: Oct 25, 2003

Post   Posted: Dec 07, 2011 - 20:08
FUMBBL Staff
Reply with quote Back to top

The stats are interesting, and the tiers are interesting too, and certainly fullfill the criteria set for them.

they show the win record of the races that have played in b against each other.

A big thanks to VM for doing the grunt work on this. It is illuminating and useful addition to 'the debate' and our knowledge of how B is working in particular.

the caution in them for me, is that no one single persons experience is likely to mirror the average for the site. Their game profile with any one team is unlikely to fit the average profile (TV played at and races faced).

So as always it is important in drawing conclusions from statistical data to be aware of the limitations of data, the exact question being answered by the data, and hence to interpret the data into useful concepts and conclusions.

Certainly this data does point up the average strength of races as played in B on FUMBBL, there are a heap of other factors inherant within that data beyond merely the racial choice however.

Which is why statistical analysis is an art form, not a science.

_________________
Barbarus hic ego sum, quia non intelligor illis -Ovid
I am a barbarian here because i am not understood by anyone
Gotte



Joined: Dec 16, 2010

Post   Posted: Dec 08, 2011 - 09:41 Reply with quote Back to top

It might be true that the beast of nurgle is a handicap in a tv fixed enviroment. I will try to dump him after my next game and judge after I am done with the 20after that. Would be interesting if it was possible to get separate statistics for nurgle teams with and without the beast.
VoodooMike



Joined: Nov 07, 2010

Post   Posted: Dec 08, 2011 - 13:29 Reply with quote Back to top

PurpleChest wrote:
the caution in them for me, is that no one single persons experience is likely to mirror the average for the site. Their game profile with any one team is unlikely to fit the average profile (TV played at and races faced).

Maybe we need to talk about what "average" means. You're certainly more likely to experience something that mirrors the average than you are to experience something that lies far outside it - if you weren't, then that wouldn't be the average.

Now, if what you're saying is that there will be a difference in the outcome based on whether you're a very good or very poor coach, then that's certainly possible - but it is, at the moment, pure speculation, unlike the numbers based on actual games played. We'd need to take the records of teams that have played a great many games and run some t-tests to see if they really are significantly different than those averages.

PurpleChest wrote:
So as always it is important in drawing conclusions from statistical data to be aware of the limitations of data, the exact question being answered by the data, and hence to interpret the data into useful concepts and conclusions.

Well this is your chance to explain the limitation of the data. What has been stated as a conclusion that cannot be justified by it?

PurpleChest wrote:
Which is why statistical analysis is an art form, not a science.

It's very much a science. The hand-waving horseshit comes from the fact that the average person seriously believes they know enough, intuitively, to interpret results. The only art is knowing what you actually understand, and that's an art you need to learn to apply to all areas of human knowledge.
PurpleChest



Joined: Oct 25, 2003

Post   Posted: Dec 08, 2011 - 14:03
FUMBBL Staff
Reply with quote Back to top

Quote:
Now, if what you're saying is that there will be a difference in the outcome based on whether you're a very good or very poor coach, then that's certainly possible - but it is, at the moment, pure speculation, unlike the numbers based on actual games played. We'd need to take the records of teams that have played a great many games and run some t-tests to see if they really are significantly different than those averages.


That data would really interest me, and certainly add yet more significant knowledge.

VM i really am not trying to pick a fight, I like what you have produced and think it is significant and interesting.

I cede that the study and anlysis of statistical data is a science. the wild innacuracy of the understanding of the question, the answers shown and the factors unaccounted for give grounds for the art of interpretting said data into RL useable conclusions.

In its simplest form, any couple marrying in the Uk can expect to have 1.8 children. Yet you will struggle to find anyone with 1.8 children. this lies at the heart of my contention that the actual experience of running a team in b may differ from the average profile gleaned from matches played by all teams of that race. While of course most teams, and to some extent all teams, will trend towards that average.

Mainly i am urging caution in interpretting the data as an answer to question it hasnt asked.(EDIT: and to be clear, you (VM) have not done this) Be fun to see this approach mixed with actual races faced %'s and maybe drawn out over differing TV values.

But maybe also the question: What race is best to play in B given the TV races are likely to play at and the races it is likely to face? Shouldnt be answered.

_________________
Barbarus hic ego sum, quia non intelligor illis -Ovid
I am a barbarian here because i am not understood by anyone
PurpleChest



Joined: Oct 25, 2003

Post   Posted: Dec 08, 2011 - 14:07
FUMBBL Staff
Reply with quote Back to top

Oh, and the interesting surprises for me were that Dorfs come in at tier 1, and that woodies do not.

_________________
Barbarus hic ego sum, quia non intelligor illis -Ovid
I am a barbarian here because i am not understood by anyone
Display posts from previous:     
 Jump to:   
All times are GMT + 1 Hour
Post new topic   Reply to topic
View previous topic Log in to check your private messages View next topic