Register    Login    Forum    FAQ

Board index » Community Discussion » The NAF




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 507 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34  Next
Author Message
 Post subject: Reconsidering the ruling on Khorne?
 Post Posted: Thu Oct 08, 2015 4:21 am 
Legend
Legend
User avatar

Joined: Thu May 07, 2009 11:15 am
Posts: 2479
Location: Wellington, New Zealand
legowarrior wrote:
Look, the game lack any semblance of balance as it stands today


Prove it

_________________
League and tournament hosting, blogging and individual forums - all totally free. For the most immersive tabletop sports community experience around, check out theendzone.co


Top 
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Reconsidering the ruling on Khorne?
 Post Posted: Thu Oct 08, 2015 7:37 am 
Emerging Star
Emerging Star

Joined: Thu Jan 05, 2012 11:21 pm
Posts: 427
My look was more about 'do we care what happens over their careers?' I found that somewhat surprising. In my opinion the answer is quite clear.

The game lacks balance, is an equally absurd conjecture. The game is naturally pretty balanced. I guess that comment comes about how TV is easily abused in perpetual. Then I do agree.

Resurrection though, is an extremely balanced game in my opinion. So is playing TV with well balanced rosters.


Top 
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Reconsidering the ruling on Khorne?
 Post Posted: Thu Oct 08, 2015 7:58 am 
Emerging Star
Emerging Star
User avatar

Joined: Thu Oct 07, 2010 9:03 am
Posts: 420
straume wrote:
Each to his own, I guess. The way I see it there are two problems with this approach:

1) It is rude. I am probably a bit to tender for the Interwebs, but I just don`t get how people assume it is okay to act like a jackass on a forum.
2) Any sound argument which might be there is diminished/drowned because of 1.

The funny part is that you think that's a problem for ME when in reality it is a problem for YOU. Swaying your opinion isn't particularly important: the truth is the truth, and an inability to see the forest for the trees is a weakness in the observer not the forest. If you're unable to get past what you perceive to be unacceptable rudeness then you're simply remaining ignorant. Who do you think that's hurting, exactly?

If your life is governed by butthurt, and your opinion of how worthwhile someone's thoughts and opinions are is based on how nice they are to you, you're essentially a child.

Regash wrote:
Do that IRL, face to face with people who know who you are, where you live and maybe be in a position to get revenge...

Only if you're in highschool, drinking at a biker bar, or are a member of the lower class. In the real world, outside the slums, people don't throw punches because regardless of what sort of offense you took, violence puts you in jail. Additionally, most professionals in any position you should care about will have a fairly thick skin as they wouldn't have gotten there without it.

---

The simple fact is this: NTBB has, across the past 2-3 years, lost the majority of the confidence and support it had from people online. There are certainly people who still thinks it sounds good, but the number of people you'll see calling for its implementation online has dwindled to pretty much nothing. That's why despite plasmoid's original scoffing at statistical analysis (including saying he won't bother to learn any of it) he's made a complete 180 and now tries to justify his houserules as being supported by them.

The problem for 'ol plasmoid is this: his intuited houserules turned out to run contrary to the actual numbers when numbers people looked at them. It doesn't matter if he goes back and starts looking at numbers, the houserules he spews will still be based on intuition - he's still guessing at what will achieve the stated goals, and the only way to know is extensive testing. In the past some people thought his intuition was better than most peoples.. but that has been proven false... so now his guesswork has no more weight than the next guy's... and there are a whole lot of people slinging guesswork around the BB world. Nobody is going to take that guesswork on faith far enough to bother testing them.

The end.

So sure, this little herpderp squad can, just like plasmoid, make-believe they're going to learn stats and mine for some sort of gold, but that's a pipe dream. By all menas give it a go, but realize it will amount to nothing in the end... much like NTBB has.

harvestmouse wrote:
The game lacks balance, is an equally absurd conjecture. The game is naturally pretty balanced.

It's not balanced. It does come down to how we define balance, though... if you get creative enough with the definition then you can say it is!

If you play 10,000 games between two teams of different rosters, nobody expects the split to approach 5,000 for each. The rosters aren't "balanced" against each other, even within the tiers. If you play two teams of the same roster but with a TV difference of, say, 400... you don't expect a 50:50 split either, you expect the higher TV to win more often, so the game isn't "balanced" based on TV either because inducements fail to bridge the gap. BBRC claims that's deliberate, so.. .deliberate lack of balance there.

In what way IS the game balanced?

_________________
Image


Top 
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Reconsidering the ruling on Khorne?
 Post Posted: Thu Oct 08, 2015 8:22 am 
Emerging Star
Emerging Star

Joined: Thu Jan 05, 2012 11:21 pm
Posts: 427
Well that's a 50/50 balance. Inducments were never meant to balance things 50/50, but I think they do a pretty good job. I'd also say the more balanced the roster (by that I mean the more spread of skills and diversity of play) the better inducements work. However as I said I think there are massive floors with the TV system.

As an example, how we receive the ball and how offence/defence work means that we have an equal chance of scoring until we do score and then the trailing team has more offensive time. How the game plays and the balance between agile and strength, playing safe and going for it, piling in the blocks and going for position and many many more examples, leads to a balanced and competitive system where one choice is correct one game and not in the next.


Top 
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Reconsidering the ruling on Khorne?
 Post Posted: Thu Oct 08, 2015 8:35 am 
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: Fri Mar 28, 2014 10:21 am
Posts: 248
VoodooMike wrote:
The funny part is that you think that's a problem for ME when in reality it is a problem for YOU.

If your life is governed by butthurt, and your opinion of how worthwhile someone's thoughts and opinions are is based on how nice they are to you, you're essentially a child.


But namecalling on the internet, that is the adult way to do it? Simple fact: How you behave will affect how people will assess you and your points. This is true in real life and also on a internet forum.

Swaying my opinion might not be important to you, but I would assume being taken seriously matters? Just a little bit? If not, fine. And I will actually give you a point in that it is indeed my problem if I miss a gold nugget hidden in your posts. If that be the case then I am sure I can live on and cope with it blissfully ignorant.


Top 
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Reconsidering the ruling on Khorne?
 Post Posted: Thu Oct 08, 2015 9:53 am 
Emerging Star
Emerging Star
User avatar

Joined: Thu Oct 07, 2010 9:03 am
Posts: 420
harvestmouse wrote:
Well that's a 50/50 balance.

Awesome defintion! So we can also say a fist-fight between a 75 lbs kid and a 150 lbs bully is balanced, just balanced in favour of the former losing his lunch money!

harvestmouse wrote:
Inducments were never meant to balance things 50/50, but I think they do a pretty good job.

A pretty good job of what? I mean, we have no real data from environments where inducements aren't used, but we don't see inducements compensating for the difference in TV levels in any environment we DO have data from. What are they doing a good job of? Promoting the "balance" that we're defining as the game being balanced in favour of TV underdogs losing?

harvestmouse wrote:
I'd also say the more balanced the roster (by that I mean the more spread of skills and diversity of play) the better inducements work.

Well, we can actually test that idea by looking at relationship between TV difference and match victory for rosters you consider to be "balanced". Maybe that's some good first homework for this thread's herpderp squad and their newly downloaded stats programs!

harvestmouse wrote:
However as I said I think there are massive floors with the TV system.

It's what's used in all common environments as a means of determining inducements. If it doesn't work for inducements then that's a balance issue with the game as a whole.

straume wrote:
But namecalling on the internet, that is the adult way to do it?

Well, obviously it is since I'm both an adult and calling someone names on the internet, right? To be honest, I find adults are far more liberal with their namecalling and insulting in the real world than children are - children are worried about getting in trouble, adults are not.

straume wrote:
Simple fact: How you behave will affect how people will assess you and your points.

Simpler fact: how people assess you and your points only matters during a popularity contest. The truth value of someone's point will not change based on how likable you consider them to be... if you find it does then it should raise alarm bells for you... about you.

straume wrote:
Swaying my opinion might not be important to you, but I would assume being taken seriously matters? Just a little bit? If not, fine. And I will actually give you a point in that it is indeed my problem if I miss a gold nugget hidden in your posts. If that be the case then I am sure I can live on and cope with it blissfully ignorant.

It again comes down to the context. I'm already taken seriously by the people who matter. Why? Not because I'm a nice guy.. I'm not.. it's because I've conclusively demonstrated my competence in various topics. Being demonstrably right trumps liberally distributed hand-jobs in the long run. People whose views on whether I'm right or wrong are based on peripheral things like how nice and polite I am are already people we know don't care much about what's true... so what use are they to anybody?

_________________
Image


Top 
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Reconsidering the ruling on Khorne?
 Post Posted: Thu Oct 08, 2015 12:01 pm 
Emerging Star
Emerging Star

Joined: Thu Jan 05, 2012 11:21 pm
Posts: 427
Well we're generally talking about 2 different things, though admittedly I did try to defend match making to a point.

I'm talking about it being a beautifully balanced game, how it plays, the opportunities and the weight of options. It is a very well balanced game.

You're talking about match making and handicapping. I, like you am not a fan of TV. Because it's so easy to abuse. However is it unbalanced for TT resurrection games? I don't think so. And yeah my point earlier, it's ok if we're looking at teams built without TV weight watching in mind, which isn't really happening.

You give me a rookie 1250 TV Norse team that can only take linos and give me inducements and I'll give any player with a high TV team in the world a good competitive game, providing their team is well balanced. By that I mean, building for weight not min-max, playing a healthy mix of games, having a healthy turn over of players and doesn't have any broken combos.

And that I think is a good system. Shame we can't have it that way though.


Top 
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Reconsidering the ruling on Khorne?
 Post Posted: Thu Oct 08, 2015 12:23 pm 
Ex-Mega Star, now just a Super Star
Ex-Mega Star, now just a Super Star
User avatar

Joined: Thu May 26, 2005 11:10 am
Posts: 1718
Location: Bristol, UK
VoodooMike wrote:
It again comes down to the context. I'm already taken seriously by the people who matter. Why? Not because I'm a nice guy.. I'm not.. it's because I've conclusively demonstrated my competence in various topics. Being demonstrably right trumps liberally distributed hand-jobs in the long run. People whose views on whether I'm right or wrong are based on peripheral things like how nice and polite I am are already people we know don't care much about what's true... so what use are they to anybody?


I'm quite able to see truth in a situation and make an objective definition of the worth of that truth. I can also make an objective assessment of a messenger and I'm afraid the delivery of truth in no way invalidates my assessment of the messenger and whether they are due any respect.

I have had plenty of people give me the factually right answer but would never work with them again because of their general behaviour, others can give me the correct answer and not leave me wondering why I am working with them.

_________________
Time flies like an arrow, Fruit flies like a banana.
Image


Top 
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Reconsidering the ruling on Khorne?
 Post Posted: Thu Oct 08, 2015 6:51 pm 
Emerging Star
Emerging Star
User avatar

Joined: Fri Mar 25, 2005 6:26 pm
Posts: 324
Location: London, UK
harvestmouse wrote:
Resurrection though, is an extremely balanced game in my opinion. So is playing TV with well balanced rosters.


Is it?

I thought that wood elves and undead were supposed to be pretty good.

legowarrior wrote:
Do we really care what they will do over careers? There is no balance to the teams or to the skills at all, so just look at have the win ratios look at a particular tv point. Do the new win ratios met the criteria? KISS


It is all very well saying that a team is good at a certain TV. But if they are rarely able to maintain that TV that wouldn't make them a good team.

If a team team tends to remain at lower TV due to injuries how do they do against a team that can maintain a higher TV? Do people just get fed up with running those teams?

Unless you are running a TV matched league then maybe you should be looking at number of games rather than TV.


Top 
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Reconsidering the ruling on Khorne?
 Post Posted: Fri Oct 09, 2015 3:06 am 
Emerging Star
Emerging Star
User avatar

Joined: Thu Oct 07, 2010 9:03 am
Posts: 420
harvestmouse wrote:
You're talking about match making and handicapping.

Not the former but certainly the latter. Given that all the environments that are commonly used anywhere use the inducement rules it's a bit silly to claim the game is balanced if the handicapping system always used is unbalanced. Additionally, we have data from environments other than matchmaking and they continue to show that different rosters enjoy different levels of success... so we can't claim those are balanced.

harvestmouse wrote:
I'm talking about it being a beautifully balanced game, how it plays, the opportunities and the weight of options. It is a very well balanced game.

If there's no balance when TV is different... and no balance when rosters are different... what are you claiming is balanced about the game?

harvestmouse wrote:
You give me a rookie 1250 TV Norse team that can only take linos and give me inducements and I'll give any player with a high TV team in the world a good competitive game, providing their team is well balanced. By that I mean, building for weight not min-max, playing a healthy mix of games, having a healthy turn over of players and doesn't have any broken combos.

So, give you a team and let you choose the composition of your opponent's team, and it'll be a balanced game? Does that ever happen in the actual game in any environment? Maybe single player on Cyanide? I bet you could give Cyanide's AI a competitive game, certainly!

Loki wrote:
I'm quite able to see truth in a situation and make an objective definition of the worth of that truth. I can also make an objective assessment of a messenger and I'm afraid the delivery of truth in no way invalidates my assessment of the messenger and whether they are due any respect.

Outside of your masturbatory fantasies it is not a seller's market when it comes to your esteem and association. If you get the message from what's said then the rest of it doesn't matter to anyone but you.

_________________
Image


Top 
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Reconsidering the ruling on Khorne?
 Post Posted: Fri Oct 09, 2015 7:58 am 
Emerging Star
Emerging Star

Joined: Thu Jan 05, 2012 11:21 pm
Posts: 427
I'm talking about the 'game engine', and that is a well balanced game. You can match make and handicap as you like, that's outside of the game that takes place. Running, making a dodge, how likely a turn over will happen, weighing up the chances, pushing for an early score, going for position or trying to pound your opponent....this sort of thing.

Rosters were never meant to be fair, so it's difficult to call them balanced or not. Ok something like Zons will always have balance problems.


Top 
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Reconsidering the ruling on Khorne?
 Post Posted: Tue Oct 13, 2015 9:51 am 
Legend
Legend
User avatar

Joined: Sun May 05, 2002 9:55 am
Posts: 5119
Location: Copenhagen
Hi Mike,
regarding your posting-style/name calling:
You poke fun of anyone why would ignore the truth simply because it is coated in bile.
I don't think the issue is when you post a rare kernel of objective truth. It's when you post opinions, conjecture and innuendo, that peoples impression of you come into play.
You say you like name calling. I don't doubt that, but I think you're far to rational for that to be the main reason. I think you're bashing other people to run them out of your threads. That way, it appears to the untrained eye like nobody has anything to say against your arguments. Perhaps it even appears that way to you too.

Anyway, I still find it rich that you roll your eyes at me using CRP stats, when you were the one who demanded that I did.
Was I not allowed to tell anyone that I did?
So, for example, looking at Undead.
If you remove the mirror matches (data chaff) and go with a confidence interval of 95, I get:
NAF tournaments: 55.38 - 57.42 based on over 9000 games
Box between TV0-1500: 55.95 - 57.97, also based on over 9000 games.
I also looked at FOL stats in 2013 for TV0-1500, and got 59.39 - 60.49 (I no longer have the number of games for that, but based on the size of the margin, it looks like more than 9000 games here too).

What is the problem with these stats?
As far as I can tell, there is a balance issue with Undead, and that is all I use the data for. Which I very clearly state on the website, even if you pretend that I don't.

Quote:
The simple fact is this: NTBB has, across the past 2-3 years, lost the majority of the confidence and support it had from people online.

I wonder how you measure this.... You're the data guy.
I don't know this to be true. So if you won the internet then I missed it.
More importantly, I don't really care. In fact, I kind of think you've misunderstood what NTBB/PCRP+ is to me:

They're (to me awesome) houserules, shared in long BB forum tradition of sharing your house rules.
I don't plot to have them take over the world.
It wouldn't make any difference to me if they did, because I'll be playing them either way.
I'm posting them up for other like-minded players to see and use, if they like them.
I don't really think that the data (which you commanded me to use) plays any real part in that.
people who see the way like I do may like them. Others certainly won't.

Quote:
it will amount to nothing in the end... much like NTBB has

It has ammounted to people trying them and having fun.
Moreso than I could have hoped for.


Quote:
At the end of the day it comes down to whether or not you think your snake oil is going to be affected by what people like me or dode say about it. I suspect it will, and so do you.

In 2013 I did. Because I thought you had a valid point. There was data available that previously hadn't been.
I don't "worry" about what you're saying now.

On a side note, I wish you the best of luck with getting Cyanide to implement match making based on your TV+. Maybe Dode can intercede on your behalf. I have a few minor misgivings about the rule, but even so I'd be thrilled to see it rolled out on Cyanide.
Not that I think it can replace roster balancing (such as NTBB), because TV+ can not be Applied to NAF tournaments, short term Leagues or fixed Schedule Leagues - because they have their own match making criteria.
If you can math out roster balancing while you're at it, then I'd be excited to see what you arrive at.
Just don't call it CRP squared. The confused masses just might think that they were new official rules :wink:

Cheers
Martin

_________________
Narrow Tier BB? http://www.plasmoids.dk/bbowl/NTBB.htm
Or just visit http://www.plasmoids.dk instead


Top 
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Reconsidering the ruling on Khorne?
 Post Posted: Tue Oct 20, 2015 6:54 am 
Dwarf fetishist
User avatar

Joined: Sat May 30, 2009 6:53 pm
Posts: 2692
Location: Where the Dwarf Hate is
Have been dipping in and out of this mikefest. 2 things come to mind

1 My sister in law always says, "Don't argue with assholes, they will bring you down to their level and then beat you with experience"

2 Don't feed the troll

Mike is always right. even when he is wrong he is right. Polite people are sheep, respect is for the weak.

Having now broken rule one I will retire. Mike I have basted myself lightly FLAME ON :orc:

_________________
Heff...Keeping the Dwarf (and lego) hate alive
If you cannot stall out for an 8 turn drive to score with dwarves then you need to go and play canasta with your dad..if you can find him.
Image


Top 
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Reconsidering the ruling on Khorne?
 Post Posted: Tue Oct 20, 2015 12:59 pm 
Emerging Star
Emerging Star

Joined: Thu Jan 05, 2012 11:21 pm
Posts: 427
Mike's definitely not always right. He's an intellectual debater who has a valid opinion. However he lacks colour and has a robotic outlook. I like a lot of TV+ but I think it would be a move towards living in a 1984 style society, and that's Mike.

I also think Mike's changed a little. Now, he has a reputation (never loses an argument and tells it how it is) however that's not always the best policy.


Top 
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Reconsidering the ruling on Khorne?
 Post Posted: Tue Oct 20, 2015 6:10 pm 
Legend
Legend
User avatar

Joined: Thu May 07, 2009 11:15 am
Posts: 2479
Location: Wellington, New Zealand
I think Mike brings a lot to the table, personally. In contrast I think people are occasionally way too quick to take offense at his colourful (and yes, deliberately provocative, but what's wrong with that?) similies. His underlying points are generally both considered and well argued.

Frankly I'd take VM's firebrand style over the tedious passive-aggressive faux outrage and anti-intellectualism that so often pursues him.

_________________
League and tournament hosting, blogging and individual forums - all totally free. For the most immersive tabletop sports community experience around, check out theendzone.co


Top 
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
 
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 507 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34  Next

Board index » Community Discussion » The NAF


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users

 
 

 
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Jump to: