NTBB: Stats

[Pluisje]

Try this one.

http://94.236.9.52/downloads/fumbbl2013-02-10.zip

The gameNo field may be a little out on some of the very old (early 2005) teams due to not having all their games yet. There should be none of those in the Box.

Great! I will see if I can cook something with it this week.

[koadah]

Yet more house rule options have popped up on Fumbbl.

[plasmoid]

Just to let everyone that I'm Worning on the site and analyzing stats.
But progress is slow.
Cheers
Martin

[VoodooMike]

Just to let everyone that I'm Worning on the site and trying to figure out how to support my preconceived notions through equivocation and hand waving.

FTFY, given that you've already confessed to not only having no idea how to do even basic statistics, but also having no intention of learning.

[plasmoid]

Thank you for your relevant contribution.

[garion]

This is very interesting but as these are Plasmoids House Rules he can do what he likes. He doesn't need to justify any of the changes, if he feels that Orcs are a top tier starter race then he is free to make the changes he wants to the rosters to try and make the teams a little more even in a typical 0 - 20 game TT league.

There is a huge amount of data available through fumbbl blackbox, ranked, and leagues, plus cyanide matchmaker and leagues. Even after viewing all of it I don't think there is anything conclusive that can be drawn from it because there are just too many factors to take in to consideration that can scew good stats.

I think the only things we can really draw from any of the data I have seen are pointless things like Undead are good at bashing at low to mid TV, Chaos are good at bashing at high TV. Elves are good at scoring touchdowns, and Ogres suck. But did he really need data for any of that anyway???

[koadah]

Heretic! Blasphemer!

[VoodooMike]

Thank you for your relevant contribution.

Making farting noises using my hand and armpit are as relevant as your contributions, as far as data-backed legitimacy go. It's also exactly the right sound to represent the topic of this thread (NTBB stats... since the statistical support is, thus far, armpit farts).

This is very interesting but as these are Plasmoids House Rules he can do what he likes. He doesn't need to justify any of the changes, if he feels that Orcs are a top tier starter race then he is free to make the changes he wants to the rosters to try and make the teams a little more even in a typical 0 - 20 game TT league.

I agree that he doesn't need to justify his choices for house rules, and as I've said repeatedly I have no problem with house rules as a concept. I have a problem with people claiming that the numbers somehow back up their choices, such that they're not simply what they like but somehow objectively positive because there's stats and math on their side. When he drops the latter pretense, I'll be happy to stop calling him out on it.

There is a huge amount of data available through fumbbl blackbox, ranked, and leagues, plus cyanide matchmaker and leagues. Even after viewing all of it I don't think there is anything conclusive that can be drawn from it because there are just too many factors to take in to consideration that can scew good stats.

You don't know how to analyze the data so ultimately you have no idea what you're talking about. I've seen your repeated arguments that data is secondary to gut feelings, so it's not surprising that you imagine you could perform statistical analysis by gut as well. Also not surprising that your gut-operated analysis determined that numbers are scary and confusing, and your arrogant "I know better than data" standpoint leads you to believe that your confusion is a result of the data having no meaning, not you simply being unable to find it.

I think the only things we can really draw from any of the data I have seen are pointless things like Undead are good at bashing at low to mid TV, Chaos are good at bashing at high TV. Elves are good at scoring touchdowns, and Ogres suck. But did he really need data for any of that anyway???

Key word to most of your statement is "think", as in.. your unsupported opinion. This is the same mechanic that plasmoid uses in his ace development. I notice that the two of you did not come up with an identical set of improvements, despite this superior system of analytics. What happens when two... five... fifty people implement this gut-and-experience based system of development? How do you decide who's right? The half-assed apologetics people will give is "well it doesn't matter about right, it's houserules..." and what that really means is "houserules don't matter". Neither you nor plasmoid think that's true, or you wouldn't keep whoring your houserule sets anywhere people will read them.

Data gives objective measures rather than simple opinions. Certainly you can end up with different interpretations, but they will either be supported by the data or they won't be... its not just guesswork and arrogance. Add to that the fact that you can then determine if any alterations have significant effects on the numbers, and you not only have an objective starting point but also an objective measure of outcome.... assuming you know how to work with the data, which means more than just looking at a set of numbers, nodding sagely, and saying "a-yup, just as I thought."

So make all the houserules you want, but keep this in mind:

1) Changes without data support are arbitrary and meaningless.
2) Data without proper analysis is arbitrary and meaningless
3) You can't fake analysis or do it with your lizard brain intuition.

Have fun storming the castle!

[dode74]

garion, it's not the rules themselves but the naming and justification of them which is being questioned. By calling them "narrow tier" and wanting to "bring all the T1 teams into the 45-55% bracket" it suggests a statistical justification of the rules. That justification simply isn't there right now, so the naming and justification are misleading. I'd have no objection if they were called "Plamoid's House Rules" instead. I had the same objection with your own "CRP 2nd Edition" rules (particularly when it wasn't posted in the House Rules section), the naming of which implied some sort of evolution of the official ruleset. It's misleading to the uninitiated and self-gratifying.

As for your inability to draw anything from the reams of data available, that is a limitation in your own understanding rather than the data itself.

[Darkson]

While I disagree with the whole NTBB concept, I defend Plasmoid's right to call it what he likes, whether it's "correct" or not.

[dode74]

So when I call my new house rule set "the new official GW approved CRP" you'll have no objection, right?

[Darkson]

Nope, as long as you make it clear they're non-official house rules.
But a nice strawman agreement there, seeing as Martin never claimed they were official.

[dode74]

What strawman? Your argument was "defend [his] right to call it what he likes, whether it's "correct" or not". I was testing that argument, not Martin's. You'd do well to confirm what the actual argument is before bandying about logical fallacies.
You may be consistent, but consistently following a dumb principle is still dumb.

Besides, you missed the second point: the claim to want to bring all the T1 teams into the 45-55% bracket. Such a claim requires showing that teams are outside that bracket (not done) and that the changes made are intended to adjust their win% accordingly (not done). Saying one thing and doing another is not honest, imo.

[koadah]

So Dode, where are all the statistics and analysis that the BBRC used to decide that their job was done? Where are the stats & analysis that you used for Khorne Demons?

Did they satisfy VMs rigorous standards?

Unless you are going to prove that they are already within Plasmoid's tiers then yes, I'm for him to call it narrow tiers.

So far your stats don't seem to be any more real than our witchcraft.

Show us what you have Dode.

[Darkson]

I didn't "miss" the second point, I don't care about the second point.
You want to break the World down into statistics and data, go ahead. You already killed one discussion with your demands that people quantify their feelings with cold hard facts.
I'll be sitting in the corner playing a game with people who "feel" something., and don't need reams of data to suggest changes that work for them.