If you have multiple sources of data which, individually, are large enough to work with then you shouldn't combine them, you should look at them independently and use them to verify conclusions. If they're not large enough to work with on their own, and the environments are different... the results you get will be nonsensical.plasmoid wrote:Looking at Box+FOL and NAF stats, this is what I found
An example from the thread you added your gut feelings to last week or so... using Box data we found a significant correlation between match outcome and games played. Using OCC data we found a *negative* relationship. Had we just combined the datasets we'd still have found a significant correlation. Could we have really concluded that games played is a significant predictor of match outcome then, just because we'd combined two datasets and then found one? By looking at them separately we found that the correlation IS environment specific, and thus, we know not to use it outside of that environment.
He has stated that he only cares about short term play. If you object to the idea of changes that only affect one small subset of the play that might happen in any environment then I wholeheartedly agree, but plasmoid won't since he doesn't care about what happens after 20 games <shrug>.Shteve0 wrote:You'll agree that it's no good applying a straight short term nerf to the latter if they collapse in CRP after 20 games, for instance.
I'd say pretty much 100% of what makes amazons successful in TV-matched MM is that they can have a full roster of blodge very quickly and for almost no cost... and that, for them, represents "low development". Against other low development teams they are prison rape.spubbbba wrote:B is a pretty outlandish environment, part of the reason zons are so successful there is the vast amount of bash that love claw and lack tackle.
Ow ow ow... stop. Did you note, by any chance, the number of datapoints you had in each of these 10 TV increments? I'd bet my left testicle that if you ran an ANOVA on these little groups for any race you'd find next to no significant difference between them past the first handful of TVs. You're eyeballing again, under the guise of doing stats.plasmoid wrote:I first looked at all teams in 10(0)TV increments, making note of any team with a mean win% below 45 or above 55.
You're not talking about the BBRC's tiers anymore when you exclude mirror matches, if they included them. While I agree that they're just wasteful, comparing two figures that aren't created the same way, and saying "see, look... they're different" is sort'v a "no shit, sherlock" thing. Your Tier 1 is automatically different from the original Tier 1 because the ranges are calculated in a different manner... and if they're calculated in a different way, why are you sticking to the same ranges?plasmoid wrote:Apart from the non-mirror-match win-percentages, tier 1 is still tier 1 (45-55). I'd hope to put any nerfed team in the top half of that.
Minmaxing close to 1500? Minmaxing, more and more, is defined as "doing better than I think they should" with little else as a qualifier. Why do you think they'd struggle in a league setting? That sort of team is hard to *create* in league settings, but I've yet to see someone using such a setup to poor effect in a league setting to support this often tossed around idea.Garion wrote:They are winning with ease at the moment because they have min maxed to the max. In a league setting this team would really struggle but in match maker environment they are slaughtering teams that are not min maxing.
Man, I wish that when they were handing out superpowers I'd picked up long-distance mind reading, too. I can't help but note that the numbers seem to show the win% of minmaxed teams (or, at least, highly developed teams facing fairly undeveloped teams) being higher than usual for the roster in the given TV range, which sort'v suggests they're trying to win games (in that they ARE winning games).Hitonagashi wrote:Let's be fair here Spub, people don't min-max to win in Box, they min-max to build and destroy teams/legends.
Thus spake Garion Starscraper on how Blood Bowl was intended when handed down on stone tablets from on high! Lets hear your views on gay marriage next!Garion wrote:To be fair I hated everyone of those teams you mentioned. I couldnt care less if they are a killer min max team or an elf one, bottom line is that is not how the game should be played and I personally think those coaches who are already good at the game should lead a better example. Its really a sorry state of affairs.
You probably didn't get the memo, but people think that their data-unsupported opinions are on par with analysis, and they throw them into the ring whenever people discuss data to hope legitimacy rubs off on them. It's all the rage.Shreve0 wrote:All of this discussion about min maxing being an optimal strategy for this or that team, about such-and-such team needing a nerf or buff; it's all speculation. If you read the OP, the NTBB 2 is purportedly going to take, as a basis for its changes, a slice of the vast amounts of data that exist out there; not you waving your arms about which incarnations of particular teams you hate, or why CRP is a pile of crap.