dode74
Joined: Aug 14, 2009
|
 Posted:
Nov 18, 2015 - 13:20 |
 
|
| bghandras wrote: | This felt to be through before, but does not feel to be true now. The evolution of team building passed a point. Elves do not have easy time winning anymore. 1300 TV simple pomb team is more than enough to crush them purely from the attrition point of view. And those pombers get tackle very quickly, ramping up spps in the killing process. Those team usually does not have any bloat at all.
And the bloat at TV box is not a given anymore.
Summary: I would play elves anyday in the box, and would feel good about the chances of winning against them. |
You can feel it all you like, that doesn't make it true. The data says otherwise. It's not about you, it's about the box - I don't mean that as any sort of personal attack, merely an indication that the box itself does not necessarily play out in the manner we as individuals see at our own match level.
huff - ah, you mean a team which is "consistent" as one which does not lose players. Thing is, elven teams do win consistently more than Chaos at higher TV. They're just more "streaky" in terms of the TV they play at, but they certainly appear to win more, looking at the data.
Non-elf and non-CPOMB are a different matter: your point was that people gravitate to "what can win the most easily and most consistently". The data suggests otherwise.
| Quote: | | Question- Everything else constant, which percentage removal rate would you deem kill stack OP? 59%? 75%? 5/6? |
I don't think it's a relevant question. What matters is the effect it has on game balance, which is solely a question of how often a team wins. Unless someone can come up with a better definition of "balance" than "how often a team wins", that is... |
|
|
JimmyFantastic
Joined: Feb 06, 2007
|
| Posted:
Nov 18, 2015 - 13:30 |
|
| dode74 wrote: | | What matters is the effect it has on game balance, which is solely a question of how often a team wins. Unless someone can come up with a better definition of "balance" than "how often a team wins", that is... |
How about "What % of games are not fun/competitive cos the amount of player removal feels like I don't have a chance"?
I believe that is the issue that ppl who aren't crybabies have with it. |
_________________
Pull down the veil - actively bad for the hobby! |
|
bghandras
Joined: Feb 06, 2011
|
| Posted:
Nov 18, 2015 - 13:53 |
|
| dode74 wrote: | | You can feel it all you like, that doesn't make it true. The data says otherwise. |
What data? Wherever i say feel means that i can see datas supporting my claim. So it means to the knowledge i have. Which is far from certanty, but i guess you like semantics.
Anyway, if you discredit any claim based on not directly linking datas, then please be so pedantic in your comment as you expect else to be. Thanks in advance! |
Last edited by bghandras on %b %18, %2015 - %14:%Nov; edited 1 time in total |
|
thoralf
Joined: Mar 06, 2008
|
| Posted:
Nov 18, 2015 - 14:01 |
|
Imagine a Fumbbl Cup with one division with PO and one division without PO. The idea even coheres with calling R and B "divisions." You can replace "PO" by "systemic attrition" if you please, and no I won't define what "systemic attrition" means. It's just a thought experiment.
Which one would win?
My guess is that the final would be a match between stat freaks and efficient killers.
What a final it would be. |
|
|
Woodstock
Joined: Dec 11, 2004
|
| Posted:
Nov 18, 2015 - 14:02 |
|
@Dode; Data is data, I agree, but you need to look at the environment from which you gather data to make the right conclusions.
1) Isn't it more likely to have a lower winrate (closer to 50%) if you face more mirror matches? Due to lack of variety at high TV, I can only assume Chaos, Nurgle and maybe even CD have a lot of matches against each other.
2) Also due to lack of variety, aren't teams more likely to go complete bash route team build to compete better and that give elfs a much better chance at winning despite heavy losses?
I assume Dode means the data I've seen him post on cyanide forum; http://forum.bloodbowl-game.com/viewtopic.php?p=58988#p58988 |
|
|
Loew
Joined: Feb 02, 2005
|
| Posted:
Nov 18, 2015 - 14:14 |
|
| JimmyFantastic wrote: | | dode74 wrote: | | What matters is the effect it has on game balance, which is solely a question of how often a team wins. Unless someone can come up with a better definition of "balance" than "how often a team wins", that is... |
How about "What % of games are not fun/competitive cos the amount of player removal feels like I don't have a chance"?
I believe that is the issue that ppl who aren't crybabies have with it. |
this |
|
|
dode74
Joined: Aug 14, 2009
|
| Posted:
Nov 18, 2015 - 15:11 |
|
Jimmy - "fun" is subjective. If people in B are not enjoying it then wouldn't they stop playing in B?
All games start as competitive since either side has a reasonable chance to win, but they can certainly spiral downwards at some point in the game for one side or the other. That can be either due to conceding lots of TD or taking lots of cas, or even a couple of Blitz KO results going the wrong way. If the spiraling downwards is an issue then it is the variance rather than the mean which is the issue, and would indicate that those who think this way want a bit less randomness from BB.
That's not to say reducing the variance will entirely get rid of the downwards spiral: it exists in games like chess as well, but we don't complain about that because chess is a game of skill.
bghandras - data from B as provided by koadah's site which aggregates all the data. I'd link it but I can't access it at work for some reason.
"Semantics" is merely the meaning of words. Since words are nothing more than a means to convey ideas the semantics matter, otherwise it's very easy to talk at cross-purposes. If I ask you questions which seem pedantic it's because I want to be clear about what you are thinking. I will try to be as clear about what I am thinking.
Woodstock - Absolutely right on both points. I was really just talking about higher TV and the data koadah provides, but since you brought up what I posted then I will point out that both Nurgle and Chaos have sub-50 win percentages in those charts, which means the mirror matches are actually bringing their mean win percentages upwards. At higher TV it probably is bringing them downwards somewhat.
Regarding playing bash to beat bash, it depends on what you are trying to do. Elves win more, probably partly because people skill to play against bash, so surely if people were gravitating to winning teams there would be more Elves playing? If not then people are not playing to win but for some other reason. I suggest people are playing to teambuild instead, and FOL disco/concession data suggested exactly that. The fact that R has a very different profile of teams in it suggests that people are doing the same thing there, but with a different emphasis. That's not to say people aren't playing to win: winning is better than losing as far as teambuilding goes, certainly. But teambuilding appears to be the priority, and people mostly seem to get upset when that goal is thwarted by what seems (to them) to be excessive casualties. Of course, they forget all the times they get away unscathed (or with far lower than average casualties) - that's a perceptual bias we probably all suffer from.
-----
I think we're all in the middle of the same dance as ever. I'll bow out here before it goes the usual way. |
|
|
DukeTyrion
Joined: Feb 18, 2004
|
| Posted:
Nov 18, 2015 - 15:14 |
|
Perhaps we need another thread purely to discuss potential scheduler changes, because I cannot see a base rule change happening any time soon.
There are some scheduler change ideas in this thread, such as the one from licker (even though I don't personally agree with it), which are getting lost in the noise of 'other' discussions.
... or the 'scheduler' discussion could be moved to the other thread;
https://fumbbl.com/index.php?name=PNphpBB2&file=viewtopic&t=24401 |
|
|
Mr_Foulscumm
Joined: Mar 05, 2005
|
| Posted:
Nov 18, 2015 - 15:25 |
|
| Woodstock wrote: | @Dode; Data is data, I agree, but you need to look at the environment from which you gather data to make the right conclusions.
1) Isn't it more likely to have a lower winrate (closer to 50%) if you face more mirror matches? Due to lack of variety at high TV, I can only assume Chaos, Nurgle and maybe even CD have a lot of matches against each other.
2) Also due to lack of variety, aren't teams more likely to go complete bash route team build to compete better and that give elfs a much better chance at winning despite heavy losses? |
Thank you for saying it so I didn't have to (again)!  |
_________________
Everybody's favorite coach on FUMBBL |
|
Mr_Foulscumm
Joined: Mar 05, 2005
|
| Posted:
Nov 18, 2015 - 15:34 |
|
| dode74 wrote: | That's not to say people aren't playing to win: winning is better than losing as far as teambuilding goes, certainly. But teambuilding appears to be the priority, and people mostly seem to get upset when that goal is thwarted by what seems (to them) to be excessive casualties. Of course, they forget all the times they get away unscathed (or with far lower than average casualties) - that's a perceptual bias we probably all suffer from.
|
Well of course they are playing to teambuild. Watching numbers go up and down on your coach profile is not rewarding. Everyone loves to win, but when there is no goal, and all you get when you win is to play another game with your team, actually having a team afterwards is important to people. No one is surprised by this. Blood Bowl isn't a competetive game, it's an antfarm. At least outside of tournaments and leagues. |
_________________
Everybody's favorite coach on FUMBBL |
|
the_Sage
Joined: Jan 13, 2011
|
| Posted:
Nov 18, 2015 - 15:46 |
|
The problem to me isn't that bash is so effective, the problem is that it's so (coach) skill-insensitive. Clawpomb noobs will get a 45% win rate, and clawpomb pro's a 55% win rate, as compared to, say, lizard noobs' 35% and lizard pro's 65% (numbers are made up, but you get the point). If players skillsets largely take away the relevance of coaching skill, THAT detracts from the game. |
_________________
Content: Twitch / Youtube ; Updates: Facebook / Twitter
(because big banners are compensating) |
|
licker
Joined: Jul 10, 2009
|
| Posted:
Nov 18, 2015 - 16:05 |
|
| JimmyFantastic wrote: | | dode74 wrote: | | What matters is the effect it has on game balance, which is solely a question of how often a team wins. Unless someone can come up with a better definition of "balance" than "how often a team wins", that is... |
How about "What % of games are not fun/competitive cos the amount of player removal feels like I don't have a chance"?
I believe that is the issue that ppl who aren't crybabies have with it. |
Sort of, but I don't think it's just crybabies. It's also people who don't mind the cpomb so much (like me), but who get bored pretty quickly when a higher % then desired number of games are the same thing.
That's the argument for diversity anyway. Balance is a slightly more subjective concept, and I see it being referred to differently by different posters so I'll drop my use of it (I meant balance in terms of diversity anyway, not in terms of cpomb or win rates).
Now granted, my personal statistics don't matter much because when I played box the activations were so small that there was no diversity of coaches, which isn't a terrible thing in and of itself, but when those small number of coaches are each only activating the same team again and again (as I was, so this isn't a rant directed at anyone), the diversity of matches is pathetic.
My CD played the same Nurgle team so many times, even in the same night, the same lizard team, the same underworld team, the same couple chaos teams...
See where that's going? I don't mind the matchup vs. cpomb, even spammed cpomb (though I think that's the area to address with roster changes), I started to mind it when it was every other match. But I was just as much a part of that problem as the guys I was getting matched with. Until I took the small initiative to activate minimum 3 teams each activation, but still... any high TV draw was the same.
So again, it comes down to if you think there's a problem or not. I do, but not in terms of cpomb, in terms of how the meta in B developed. |
|
|
PainState
Joined: Apr 04, 2007
|
| Posted:
Nov 18, 2015 - 16:15 |
|
Well it has been stated before many times. The core issue of Box as related to Bash and also diversity of matches across the entire TV spectrum is that not enough coaches activate at the same time.
You get a 4 match or 5 match activation round, well, that is not normal. You usually see a 2-3 match activation.
It would be interesting, although impossible, to see 10 activation's in a row where there was 15-20 matches kicking off. Then I think you would see a lot more diversity across the entire TV spectrum and the effect of heavy bash would start to decline.
But in the end that is all a dream, it will never happen that you could get 40 coaches to all activate at the same time on a constant basis. You can drum up some support for a massive activation at these times but in the end that is just a one shot deal the vast majority of the time.
The #1 way to fix the box is get a lot more coaches activating at the same time.
Of course you could say that is a chicken and egg argument. Is the reason there is not a lot of coaches activating in mass is because FUMBBL has not addressed Bash in the Box? |
_________________
Comish of the:  |
|
Uedder
Joined: Aug 03, 2010
|
| Posted:
Nov 18, 2015 - 17:16 |
|
Dode:
The only reason why Nurgle, Chaos and Cds do not have an outstanding winning % is because lots and lots of unexperienced coaches play them. And very few can properly build a clawpomb team.
Like, you don't build a ballcarrier? Not good for winning. Skip tackle for other skills? Not good for winning. Skip Guard? Not good for winning. Turn your st5 warrior into a clawpomber instead of tentacles guard stand firm? not going to win.
Most people think clawpomb alone will win them the match. Sometimes it will. But most times it may not. Sound coaches use clawpomb to help them winning the game. Used properly it's a huge advantage. And all the data you gather not taking into account the team built, the coach experience etc... won't really show anything.
It all collpases in front of the pure maths. 50%+ chance of removal on any player? Broken. Nothing is even close to that, not even a DP gangfoul which has way worse cost/opportunity in terms of positioning and potential loss of your own player.
Not even a saw has those odds i'm pretty sure.
This is not considered in any data you can make on winning %. Experience is the only thing that helps you there. See a well-built Nurgle, a well-built chaos or such play another well-built team of any race, both played by good coaches. There is where clawpomb shows its power.
Not by saying elves win more against tackleless, surehandsless, guardless, tentacle-less teams. That's obvious.
Everybody knows how clawpomb is broken. Just like everybody knows how natural oneturners are broken. |
|
|
dode74
Joined: Aug 14, 2009
|
| Posted:
Nov 18, 2015 - 20:36 |
|
| Uedder wrote: | Dode:
The only reason why Nurgle, Chaos and Cds do not have an outstanding winning % is because lots and lots of unexperienced coaches play them. |
I've heard this explanation as a reason for many teams not doing well. Orcs are a prime example. Unless there's actually some data to back this up then it's just an attempt confirm via theorybowl your own preconceptions as to why the data isn't showing what you think the data should show.
Really, really stepping away now... |
|
|
|
|
| |
Blood Bowl 2024 Edit...
Search
