JimmyFantastic
Joined: Feb 06, 2007
|
 Posted:
Feb 20, 2012 - 16:35 |
 
|
| Sp00keh wrote: |
my data is skewed for the average box team. i see that in tournaments it isn't going to be like that. your method probably makes more sense when picking team for tournament, but you also had plans to use the info here ... |
Yes this is true my stats are geared more towards TT tournaments but also my point stands for Box.
Chaos are very poor at low TV and I am confident of having a great win% vs them whatever top team I use.
What matters to me is the hard matches vs good teams, not whether my race is a 55% or 60% to beat Chaos. |
_________________
Pull down the veil - actively bad for the hobby! |
|
uuni
Joined: Mar 12, 2010
|
| Posted:
Feb 20, 2012 - 16:35 |
|
Go for it Jimmy!
I think your results are reasonable. Ignore the mad hatters and do it!  |
|
|
King_Ghidra
Joined: Sep 14, 2009
|
| Posted:
Feb 20, 2012 - 16:38 |
|
presuably hito's amazon box stats include kfoged's ludicrous min-maxed rampage with the hell grannies, i think almost all of that team's matches were played in this range
that team alone may have skewed some of the stats, they have 10 wins from 14 vs chaos dwarves. deduct that from the stats and the zons vs chaos dwarf win % goes down from 48% to 43% (i think). anyway, the point is tgh sample size is small enough that one or two teams or one or two coaches that may not fit your expectation of the scenario you are judging can cause large fluctuations in your results
(though this may add weight to your thought of using cdwarves for your team  ) |
|
|
Azure
Joined: Jan 30, 2007
|
| Posted:
Feb 20, 2012 - 16:48 |
|
I like the chart. It is cute |
|
|
licker
Joined: Jul 10, 2009
|
| Posted:
Feb 20, 2012 - 16:56 |
|
Thank god I don't know or care what NAF is.
This is the most stupid thread in a long litany of absolutely stupid threads. |
|
|
Sp00keh
Joined: Dec 06, 2011
|
| Posted:
Feb 20, 2012 - 17:01 |
|
amazons played 1215 games in the sample, 79 games against chaos dwarf
i think the date range is around september last year, for a couple months. hell grannies first match was 2011-11-26 so they'd not be included |
|
|
Hitonagashi
Joined: Apr 09, 2006
|
| Posted:
Feb 20, 2012 - 17:13 |
|
| licker wrote: | Thank god I don't know or care what NAF is.
This is the most stupid thread in a long litany of absolutely stupid threads. |
The NAF is an organisation devoted to running Tabletop tournaments. Jimmy is refering to the NAF Championships, which was previously known as The Bloodbowl, and held at GW HQ in May I believe. (Already paid for my ticket!)
The ruleset is 1.05M TV, 1 skill per round, stars allowed, no mercs/babes/bribes etc.
What he is trying to do is work out a competitive roster for the tournament using my Blackbox stats to compare how races perform against each other at low TV.
Also, Hell Grannies may not be included...but Pyrates Royal certainly are  . It's possible both are, I forget when exactly I grabbed them. I'd say you can't really trust the CD stats...too much minmax. |
|
|
Sp00keh
Joined: Dec 06, 2011
|
| Posted:
Feb 20, 2012 - 18:32 |
|
true, there's a lot of difference between a team at 1200 TV which has played 2 games, than one which has played 100 games.
chaos pact springs to mind, no big guys but a couple clawpombs for example
there's no way to tell from this data, but it would skew the usefulness of the results for application to a tournament situation where there's no old, developed teams around |
|
|
|
|
Finishing the 60 Gam...
Search
