Hitonagashi
Joined: Apr 09, 2006
|
 Posted:
Dec 09, 2011 - 14:49 |
 
|
| VoodooMike wrote: |
| 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.
|
Not wanting to get too sidelined, but that's just complete bull. Einstein himself said "The greatest scientists are artists as well", and one of the greatest physicists of our age Feynmann was famous for his intuitive approach to solving problems, leading to him getting a Nobel prize.
Some people are rigorous and analytical and logical (as you appear to be), others rely on their intuition to give them the creative leap that they can then start proper analysis on.
Sure, you have your approach that works for you. Generations of top level programmers, mathematicians and scientists would like to point out that there are other ways to make a start on a hypothesis than your way. Maybe you should look up what the intuitive leap of Gödel did to years of Bertrand Russells careful logical progression?
Logic has it's place. As does intuition. |
|
|
VoodooMike
Joined: Nov 07, 2010
|
| Posted:
Dec 09, 2011 - 15:11 |
|
| Hitonagashi wrote: | | Not wanting to get too sidelined, but that's just complete bull. Einstein himself said "The greatest scientists are artists as well", and one of the greatest physicists of our age Feynmann was famous for his intuitive approach to solving problems, leading to him getting a Nobel prize. |
No, what you're saying is bull, probably based on not thinking very hard about what you're saying. In the cases you're citing intuition is not being used to solve problems, it is being used to select a starting point from which to proceed, after which pure logic is applied. If that weren't the case it wouldn't be science and he wouldn't have won a nobel prize.
Consider a highschool math test (I assume all readers have at least highschool math). If you used intuition to answer a question you'd likely get no marks, or at best partial - why? because guessing is not a valid form of mathematics. You can pick a starting point (intuitively) and work your way through to the answer using actual math (which is straight logic).
| Hitonagashi wrote: | | Some people are rigorous and analytical and logical (as you appear to be), others rely on their intuition to give them the creative leap that they can then start proper analysis on. |
Emphasis is mine. You're objecting to something that was never said, and then supporting the things I actually DID say. How you begin doesn't matter... use the force, consult your magic 8-ball, read chicken entrails. Once you've got a starting point:
| VoodooMike wrote: | | ..you should think your way through, not feel your way through.. |
| Hitonagashi wrote: | | Sure, you have your approach that works for you. Generations of top level programmers, mathematicians and scientists would like to point out that there are other ways to make a start on a hypothesis than your way. Maybe you should look up what the intuitive leap of Gödel did to years of Bertrand Russells careful logical progression? |
You're very much overinflating the importance of the starting point and diminishing the actual work that comes afterward... and then handwaving in the idea that they're equal. Bullcrap! Even children have wild ideas, but ideas are 1% of the equation, regardless of how you arrive at them. The 99% that follows is real work, and it doesn't involve magical ponies or visits to hoggwarts academy.
| Hitonagashi wrote: | | Logic has it's place. As does intuition. |
Yes, logic has its place in a discussion of numbers and statistics. Intuition has its place with fortune tellers and people who aren't self-aware enough to figure out what internal processes led them to think and feel the things they do. |
|
|
Smeesh
Joined: Oct 29, 2005
|
| Posted:
Dec 09, 2011 - 15:23 |
|
Well combining both is often the key to great inventions. Focusing only on one side is often good on working level but does generally not get you famous  .
Greetings
Smeesh
PS: Of course there are exceptions like great chess masters, but i doupt the do all based on pure logic. |
Last edited by Smeesh on %b %09, %2011 - %15:%Dec; edited 1 time in total |
|
dode74
Joined: Aug 14, 2009
|
| Posted:
Dec 09, 2011 - 15:24 |
|
| King_Ghidra wrote: | | My post was entirely about providing another perspective, so I'm pleased to see you agree I succeeded. |
You did, but I'm wondering how useful the perspective is.
| King_Ghidra wrote: | | 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. |
Are you sure about that?
| King_Ghidra wrote: | | 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? |
"Hole" is a judgement. You may not like how the designers set out the aims, but that's what they did. Overlaying your own metric on it then claiming that the game doesn't come up to the standard you set by that metric is strawmanning.
| VoodooMike wrote: | | What percentage of games played on the internet do you believe fall into those categories? |
I fail to see the relevance of the question. It appears to be a rather irrelevant appeal to popularity. TV-matching is a house rule - just because there are no options but to use that outside of leagues and tournaments doesn't mean it is the right thing to do in terms of maintaining game balance. Nor is it necessarily a good source of data about CRP - you say yourself that the game's dynamic changes when teams have to take on other teams with a good record. The same is true when TV-effficient teams take on other TV-efficient teams at different TVs.
| VoodooMike wrote: | | 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. |
Aggregation is great when you're looking at what is relevant here, but the question being asked requires that the aggregation be removed to a certain level. What the TV-comparison data showed was that all other things being equal the higher TV team generally had a higher win% as the gap widened; as such, racial factors are ignored. The confidence in that data was only really any good up to small TV differences, unless you're stating that extrapolation is legitimate here. What the TV-comparison data didn't show was how certain races did against certain other races when they were playing at certain (non-equivalent) TVs. For example, how does an 1800TV orc team do against 2200TV Chaos if both teams are "lean" and efficient. More importantly, I'd prefer to look at individual races at certain TVs, but where their opposition is not limited by their TV - i.e. at what TV does race X maintain the highest win% against all comers.
| VoodooMike wrote: | | Do your numbers from Cyanide support his statement without any post-hoc caveats like "well, the game wasn't designed for this so..." |
I don't have those numbers - that's why I asked if they were available in [L ]. FOL and [B ] are TV-matched, and so was [R ] until recently. I doubt I could get the data for Cyanide leagues, but I will try. I doubt there will be much more than there is for [L ], or that it will consist of anything more worthwhile.
| VoodooMike wrote: | | 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? |
If people sign up to the tournament then they accept the premise. It may not be strictly logical, but given the vagaries of the dice I'd say any form of elimination tournament is going to produce a fairly non-representative (of ability) set of results in the short term. Personally I would do it very differently. |
Last edited by dode74 on %b %09, %2011 - %16:%Dec; edited 1 time in total |
|
BooAhl
Joined: Sep 02, 2004
|
| Posted:
Dec 09, 2011 - 15:29 |
|
OFF-topic warning!
| VoodooMike wrote: | ... using actual math (which is straight logic).
|
Is math = logic?
I didnt know this. I thought logic was some philosofical invention that was applicable to some maths. |
|
|
King_Ghidra
Joined: Sep 14, 2009
|
| Posted:
Dec 09, 2011 - 15:30 |
|
| blader4411 wrote: | Dwarves stronger against more races than all the ClawPOMB teams save CDs?
Are you smoking something sir? 
|
btw, of the four teams Dwarves are 'poor' against, three are clawpombers (Chaos 0.46, Nurgle 0.45, Chaos Dwarf (0.44).
Funnily enough Orcs have almost exactly the same 'poor' performance against these teams (Chaos 0.46, Chaos dwarf 0.45, Nurgle 0.44).
Which some might argue supports the popular opinion about clawpomb resigning these AV9 powerhouses to the scrapheap. |
|
|
Hitonagashi
Joined: Apr 09, 2006
|
| Posted:
Dec 09, 2011 - 15:41 |
|
| VoodooMike wrote: | | You're very much overinflating the importance of the starting point and diminishing the actual work that comes afterward... and then handwaving in the idea that they're equal. Bullcrap! Even children have wild ideas, but ideas are 1% of the equation, regardless of how you arrive at them. The 99% that follows is real work, and it doesn't involve magical ponies or visits to hoggwarts academy. |
The difference between us is that you see the starting point as easy and obvious. I see the starting point as the hardest point to find, and the rest merely a matter of calculation that any computer could do.
What use is an answer if you aren't asking the right question? |
Last edited by Hitonagashi on %b %09, %2011 - %15:%Dec; edited 3 times in total |
|
JimmyFantastic
Joined: Feb 06, 2007
|
| Posted:
Dec 09, 2011 - 15:42 |
|
| VoodooMike wrote: |
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.
|
You are wrong here. This exactly the arguments that people have had about high/low TV which you quite rightly shot down. If there a massive amount of Dwarf teams and Chaos crush them then Chaos are a top team in the Box, just the same as if Amazons are good at low TV but suck at high TV if they play all their games at low TV. |
_________________
Pull down the veil - actively bad for the hobby! |
|
King_Ghidra
Joined: Sep 14, 2009
|
| Posted:
Dec 09, 2011 - 15:46 |
|
| dode74 wrote: |
| King_Ghidra wrote: | | 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. |
Are you sure about that? |
From my coach page:
Total Record: 147 / 87 / 157
Win Percentage: 49%
Yes, I am sure.
| dode74 wrote: | | King_Ghidra wrote: | | 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? |
"Hole" is a judgement. You may not like how the designers set out the aims, but that's what they did. Overlaying your own metric on it then claiming that the game doesn't come up to the standard you set by that metric is strawmanning. |
Sorry? I merely posted raw % for wins and wins+draws to see if there was any correlation between these fundamental criteria and the tiers posted by VM. If you are suggesting that win % is a strawman then you are lost in a bad statistical place, because it is very obviously a fundamental, basic measure of success in any competitive activity. |
|
|
dode74
Joined: Aug 14, 2009
|
| Posted:
Dec 09, 2011 - 15:53 |
|
| Quote: | From my coach page:
Total Record: 147 / 87 / 157
Win Percentage: 49%
Yes, I am sure. |
Really? Because if you work it out your way then it's 48.3%. Working it out the BBRC way comes out as 48.7%.
Koadah is 383-179-289 with a stated 55%, your way comes up 56.3% and the BBRC way is 54.9%.
RandomOracle is 687-159-170 with a stated 75%. Your way comes out at 80%, while the BBRC way is 75.4%
Christer is 487-129-204 with 67% stated. Your way: 70.4%. BBRC way: 67.2%.
I put it to you that you are incorrect here.
| Quote: | | If you are suggesting that win % is a strawman then you are lost in a bad statistical place, because it is very obviously a fundamental, basic measure of success in any competitive activity. |
I'm suggesting that the way you are calculating it is the strawman. |
|
|
shusaku
Joined: Jul 28, 2008
|
| Posted:
Dec 09, 2011 - 17:02 |
|
Obviously woodies are the only tier 1 team, as woodelves are by far the most popular race in the matches I have played 
I think this discussion can be closed now. |
|
|
Garion
Joined: Aug 19, 2009
|
| Posted:
Dec 09, 2011 - 17:10 |
|
I think halflings are tier 1 at a Tv above 2600 prove me wrong with your stats!  |
_________________
 |
|
shusaku
Joined: Jul 28, 2008
|
| Posted:
Dec 09, 2011 - 17:11 |
|
Something that would reajly be interesting to me in the serious part of this discussion is: The average coach rating of the coach playing each race.
In example the average coach rating of the skaven team maybe 156 vs the average coach rating of the nurgle team may be 148 or something like this. |
|
|
Corvidius
Joined: Feb 15, 2011
|
| Posted:
Dec 09, 2011 - 18:35 |
|
Ok, I can't say VoodooMike is coming across as a sparklingly friendly guy but that's irrelevant. He's set out to divide the teams into tiers relating to Fumbbl and he's set out his method and his reasons for using that method. From what I (as a complete layman) can understand I can see why he's used that method and consider it a valid method that makes sense. Bear in mind that he did this for his own enjoyment and thought it might interest others. I think he successfully met his own goals.
I find the tiers interesting so thanks for the food for thought VM. |
|
|
licker
Joined: Jul 10, 2009
|
| Posted:
Dec 09, 2011 - 18:42 |
|
| BooAhl wrote: | OFF-topic warning!
| VoodooMike wrote: | ... using actual math (which is straight logic).
|
Is math = logic?
I didnt know this. I thought logic was some philosofical invention that was applicable to some maths. |
It's not an uncommon convention to lump 'math' and 'logic' together. Of course it's using the terms in a very general sense, and people who want to play at semantics can provide examples where you cannot make the linkage.
More that 'logic' has a rigidly defined set of rules you must apply, as does (most) math.
Another way to look at it is by contrasting deductive and inductive reasoning, which is something covered in any decent philosophy class (I hope).
What's funny is how the 'fuzzy' thinkers are getting bent because VM didn't answer 'their' questions. Do your own work if you want to answer 'your' questions. |
|
|
|
|
| |
TSC Draft
Search
