t0tem
Joined: Mar 29, 2010
|
 Posted:
Aug 19, 2012 - 19:23 |
 
|
so some coaches made up numbers to replace actual numbers? i can't see how that would be useful. |
_________________
Who's there? |
|
Wreckage
Joined: Aug 15, 2004
|
| Posted:
Aug 19, 2012 - 19:33 |
|
| t0tem wrote: | | so some coaches made up numbers to replace actual numbers? i can't see how that would be useful. |
What are the numbers based upon?
| blader4411 wrote: | | We could debate this for a million years and never agree on anything. The current table is just a rough comparison drafted by a group of IRC coaches (under Christer's supervision). |
Do you know that for a fact or is that an assumption? |
Last edited by Wreckage on %b %19, %2012 - %19:%Aug; edited 2 times in total |
|
blader4411
Joined: Oct 18, 2009
|
| Posted:
Aug 19, 2012 - 19:33 |
|
| t0tem wrote: | | so some coaches made up numbers to replace actual numbers? i can't see how that would be useful. |
Define 'actual numbers'. There are no official statistics for any of these aspects: Christer wanted a rough guideline, so he asked for opinions in IRC. |
|
|
cameronhawkins
Joined: Aug 19, 2011
|
| Posted:
Aug 19, 2012 - 19:41 |
|
I strongly advise two things--
1) Don't require a quota as to the number of team that need to have a certain rating-- Blood Bowl just isn't designed this way, and it'll be misleading for true first-timers. For example, it might happen that no team has a simplicity rating of "2", so distorting things to try to shoe-horn in a certain number in each bracket will create false-equivalencies, and kinda misses the whole purpose of the project.
2) If you're using a visual thing to represent these ratings, I think it would be good to offer some representation of their strengths as the teams become more developed. By the designer's admission, development is a major part of the game.
For example, if you're using stars to represent the rating, Slann might get 3 stars for Physical prowess, plus 2 empty stars to show how much they improve when they get going. Nurgle start with a pathetic ability to score, but can build fearsomely good ball-handlers once developed, so they might get 1 star with 3 empty ones. Dwarves ball-handling and speed don't really get better as they develop, so maybe they get 2 stars an no empty stars.
make sense? |
|
|
t0tem
Joined: Mar 29, 2010
|
| Posted:
Aug 19, 2012 - 20:04 |
|
i think a short narrative description of the teams' strengths and weaknesses would serve much better as a guide to new coaches. these numbers don't make any sense to me. |
_________________
Who's there? |
|
harvestmouse
Joined: May 13, 2007
|
| Posted:
Aug 19, 2012 - 20:09 |
|
I'm confused, how does this help Christer? |
|
|
Wreckage
Joined: Aug 15, 2004
|
| Posted:
Aug 19, 2012 - 20:14 |
|
| t0tem wrote: | | i think a short narrative description of the teams' strengths and weaknesses would serve much better as a guide to new coaches. these numbers don't make any sense to me. |
When I mentioned to Christer the numbers seem to be pretty far off he replied something about a code. The way i understood him the numbers were based on an algorythm althouhg he did not definatly confirm this and instead responded that there are 4 teams in each category. |
|
|
Whitmire
Joined: Dec 08, 2011
|
| Posted:
Aug 19, 2012 - 20:15 |
|
I also agree with the use of "Bashing" for consistency. Being fancy-pants here may lead to misunderstandings later, so we might as well "cyanide" this idea of Physique.
| cameronhawkins wrote: | I strongly advise two things--
1) Don't require a quota as to the number of team that need to have a certain rating-- Blood Bowl just isn't designed this way, and it'll be misleading for true first-timers. For example, it might happen that no team has a simplicity rating of "2", so distorting things to try to shoe-horn in a certain number in each bracket will create false-equivalencies, and kinda misses the whole purpose of the project.
2) If you're using a visual thing to represent these ratings, I think it would be good to offer some representation of their strengths as the teams become more developed. By the designer's admission, development is a major part of the game.
For example, if you're using stars to represent the rating, Slann might get 3 stars for Physical prowess, plus 2 empty stars to show how much they improve when they get going. Nurgle start with a pathetic ability to score, but can build fearsomely good ball-handlers once developed, so they might get 1 star with 3 empty ones. Dwarves ball-handling and speed don't really get better as they develop, so maybe they get 2 stars an no empty stars.
make sense? |
I strongly agree.
Starting stars + potential stars are definitely the way to go. For example, Chaos Pact isn't much of anything initially, but I'm sure we all know what kind of a monster they can be developed into.
Also, if you don't include potential, you may give the wrong impression. For example, Orcs would start off very high, but Chaos? Chaos (or Pact) is terrible until it develops into the minmax CPOMB terror it can be. So would it be fair to say that Orcs are Bash 6 and Chaos Bash 4 when these numbers can be switched at higher TV. |
|
|
Purplegoo
Joined: Mar 23, 2006
|
| Posted:
Aug 19, 2012 - 20:32 |
|
I really, really can't understand how sometimes people can get so worked up over what is supposed to be a quick, easy tool for someone new. Why is a new person going to care if Pact are scored a 4 on hitting things when we all know it's a 3 to start, phasing through a 3.444 recurring into a 6, until they get smacked, then it's a 4.56, please refer to the following 67 point graph for full details? They won't.
Stop being nerds and freaking out over a couple of numbers. Your opinion will never equal the next bloke's. Sheesh! They're somewhere around accurate. That's fine. |
|
|
JimmyFantastic
Joined: Feb 06, 2007
|
| Posted:
Aug 19, 2012 - 20:46 |
|
Actually Purp, Pact peak at 5.372 but I will let you off. |
_________________
Pull down the veil - actively bad for the hobby! |
|
t0tem
Joined: Mar 29, 2010
|
| Posted:
Aug 19, 2012 - 20:54 |
|
| Purplegoo wrote: | I really, really can't understand how sometimes people can get so worked up...
...Stop being nerds and freaking out over a couple of numbers. Your opinion will never equal the next bloke's. Sheesh! |
LOL. |
_________________
Who's there? |
|
dode74
Joined: Aug 14, 2009
|
| Posted:
Aug 19, 2012 - 21:01 |
|
An option for "bashiness" might be to look at the stats for [cas for per game]/[cas against per game]. Doing so at 0-1000TV based on Koadah's B data gives the following:
| Code: | Race Rating Rank
Dwarf 2 1
Orc 1.89 2
---------------------
Undead 1.6 3
Chaos Dwarf 1.54 4
Nurgle 1.52 5
---------------------
Khemri 1.31 6
Chaos Pact 1.28 7
Chaos 1.16 8
Necromantic 1.16 8
---------------------
Amazon 1.07 10
Human 1.03 11
Norse 1.03 11
Lizardmen 0.97 13
---------------------
Dark Elf 0.79 14
High Elf 0.75 15
Slann 0.74 16
Goblin 0.73 17
---------------------
Ogre 0.63 18
Underworld 0.63 18
Halfling 0.6 20
Skaven 0.58 21
Vampire 0.56 22
Elf 0.51 23
Wood Elf 0.49 24 |
I've split them into 6 groups based on my own interpretation of where the biggest relevant gaps in those numbers are (and yes I know there is a bigger gap within group 3 than between 3 and 4, but this one is my interpretation  ), but there is certainly subjectivity as to where the splits should come.
At 1000TV this should be fairly representative for most environments (although the minmaxers at sub-1000 will add some skew). When looking at "developed" there must be some caution using solely B data (due to TV matching) and some interpretation as to what "developed" is. Using the B Premiership as an indication of "developed" suggests 1600TV+ is a good cutoff, giving us the following:
| Code: | Race Rating Rank
Chaos 1.59 1
Nurgle 1.5 2
--------------------
Dwarf 1.31 3
Chaos Dwarf 1.27 4
--------------------
Orc 1.08 5
Chaos Pact 1.02 6
Khemri 0.97 7
Undead 0.97 7
Necromantic 0.92 9
--------------------
Norse 0.82 10
Human 0.75 11
Lizardmen 0.71 12
Amazon 0.69 13
Underworld 0.68 14
--------------------
Ogre 0.58 15
Goblin 0.52 16
Skaven 0.51 17
--------------------
Dark Elf 0.44 18
Slann 0.42 19
Halfling 0.4 20
High Elf 0.37 21
Vampire 0.34 22
Wood Elf 0.33 23
Elf 0.31 24 |
Again, lines drawn solely from my interpretation.
Ball and simplicity could also use stats, although I don't have them to hand. For ball you could use [TD for] as the arbiter, but there are arguments for lots of other methods.
Simplicity is just massively open to interpretation. Win% at low TV could be argued to be an indication of how easy coaches overall find a team to win with, but is that what we mean by "simplicity"? |
|
|
cameronhawkins
Joined: Aug 19, 2011
|
| Posted:
Aug 19, 2012 - 21:56 |
|
| Purplegoo wrote: | I really, really can't understand how sometimes people can get so worked up over what is supposed to be a quick, easy tool for someone new. Why is a new person going to care if Pact are scored a 4 on hitting things when we all know it's a 3 to start, phasing through a 3.444 recurring into a 6, until they get smacked, then it's a 4.56, please refer to the following 67 point graph for full details? They won't.
Stop being nerds and freaking out over a couple of numbers. Your opinion will never equal the next bloke's. Sheesh! They're somewhere around accurate. That's fine. |
I understand what you're saying, mate, but I think that if you're going to do something, it should be done elegantly and accurately, and a bit of effort is usually required to to achieve those things.
Now, sure, there may be few people who immediately receive the "benefits" of this little chart, but I suspect that there's a widespread ultimate desire that FUMBBL not only be the best place to play Blood Bowl, but also a place which contains a wealth of Blood Bowl related information and discussion. This seems a reasonable project to that end.
Besides, even if no one ever uses it, at the very least, it'll just be a fun little rumination of the comparative strengths and weaknesses of the entire racial spectrum. That's an interesting discussion in it's own right; not sure I've ever seen a measuring of slann vs human, etc. I've seen quite a few more trivial topics poke up in the forums... |
|
|
Garion
Joined: Aug 19, 2009
|
| Posted:
Aug 19, 2012 - 22:03 |
|
| harvestmouse wrote: | | I'm confused, how does this help Christer? |
 |
|
|
Purplegoo
Joined: Mar 23, 2006
|
| Posted:
Aug 19, 2012 - 22:11 |
|
We have all of the x vs y stuff in the racial factor tables anyway, wherever they are. We don't need a forum for that.
The job worth doing well here is not getting the content exactly right; it's ease of entry. Fin. |
|
|
|
|
| |
Gnomes are trash
Search
