Register    Login    Forum    FAQ

Board index » Community Discussion » The NAF




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 507 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 30, 31, 32, 33, 34
Author Message
 Post subject: Re: Reconsidering the ruling on Khorne?
 Post Posted: Sat Oct 31, 2015 9:10 am 
Ex-Cyanide/Focus toadie

Joined: Fri Jul 24, 2009 5:55 pm
Posts: 2453
Location: Near Reading, UK
Quote:
I was actually hoping to have a reasoned conversation with someone (else?) about what would constitute a good game balance.
Didn't realise it was your forum ;)
Quote:
But if we do look at the NAF data, we might as well look at the whole thing
Is that just tournament data, or does it include leagues? The reason I used the dataset I did is I knew it was all LRB6 and all tournaments.
Quote:
still with a mean above 55%
Which, as you know, is utterly irrelevant.
Quote:
So Undead massively more likely to be over the line than not
I think Mike has covered that one adequately. You're shifting the goalposts.
Quote:
I know what the stone tablets say. Which is why I said "...and I know that I'm going against how the BBRC defined balance"
I was hoping to discuss how to better define balance.
I believe I've pointed you at Sirlin before. Game designers define balance. Change the definition of balance and you change the game. Now it's entirely possible to rebalance the game in various environments. Mike has given us TVPlus, which would work well for MM/B style environments; I don't think leagues are an issue: certainly I've seen nothing to suggest that they are. Are you now saying you want to fix tournaments? If so then you're better off producing a set of tournament rules (such as the tiering system the World Cup used, which is close to what the NAF data suggests the tiers are) which account for low-TV powershifts.
Quote:
I gave examples as to why I think the BBRC definition could be improved.
Your examples are little more than nitpicking the fact that you dislike the catchall nature of balance as it is defined by the BBRC.
  • had they intended the definition for use, they ought to have operationalized their definition. There are simply too many blanks in it. - there are no blanks, you just want more granularity. That's not the same thing.
  • Are the games giving the tier 1 45-55 win percentage supposed to be a reflection of whichever meta occurs. - Presuming you are playing a meta in the rulebook (i.e. not MM or B) then I would think so, yes.
  • In that case, a batch of super powerful could take over the meta, obliterating all other teams to the point of allmost not being played, and between them, these teams could be equal and show up as roughly 50% Winners.
    That's certainly not balance.
    - The other unplayed teams would show as not balanced, having no (or very few) wins or draws, which means a win% of 0. Has this ever actually happened, or are you doomsaying?
  • Are mirrormatches supposed to Count? Mirror matches certainly do occur, and including them would in effect make tier 1 wider than the 45-55%, because all mirror matches pull a race's stats back towards 50. If a race completely took over the meta due to being super ridiculously broken, then mirror matches would give it a huge pull towards 50. Like some of the best teams in the NAF-stats. - We know mirrors are supposed to count: it's been said before. Regardless of your distaste for their effect on the numbers, did it ever occur to you that they were set to those numbers with mirrors in mind?
  • Or - if any does not go with whichever meta is created, then one would have to use some sort of average data. But how often would each race then ave to be represented? And how much would the sub-par teams have to be represented? Are they even supposed to be included, or is the 45-55% supposed to be between just the tier 1 teams? - Yes they are included, as well you know. As for representation, you already know how proper analysis accounts for that.
  • Or - as Dode touches upon - how is team longevity supposed to be factored in? - Who says it is? The number is "lifetime", which means you account for all of them.
  • What if - say - a race is super powerful when developed. And durable. But super weak at the outset. It's stats could be through the roof. But many Leagues just run for a short period of time, and the average career of online teams are just 5 games, so if enough short term teams are played when a team has a win percentage of 30%, then that could easily drown out the few teams that get played long enough to reach zenith and a win percentage of 70%. - there's a passage in the LRB which requires that a commissioner set house rules to suit his league. Seems apposite. Furthermore, if your "super" team isn't actually doing particularly well then where, exactly, is the problem? It's nothing more than a theoretical problem.

Thanks for the comment on the graph. It takes a list of match results and turns them into WDL for each race first via a macro, then plots the data (via a formatting transform to allow the "stock"-type excel plot to be used). I'll send you the completed copy and you can do what you will with it.


Top 
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Reconsidering the ruling on Khorne?
 Post Posted: Sat Oct 31, 2015 12:50 pm 
Da Spammer
User avatar

Joined: Mon Aug 12, 2002 10:04 pm
Posts: 23632
Location: Fundamentaling for the BB Illuminati
plasmoid wrote:
I was actually hoping to have a reasoned conversation with someone (else?) about what would constitute a good game balance.

Someone that agrees with your definition?

_________________
SWTC 2017 Stunty Cup winner - never again (until next time!)


Top 
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Reconsidering the ruling on Khorne?
 Post Posted: Sat Oct 31, 2015 8:09 pm 
Emerging Star
Emerging Star
User avatar

Joined: Thu Oct 07, 2010 9:03 am
Posts: 420
I'll start by saying it should be obvious that I belive plasmoid is less like a philosopher than he is like a broken clock. So please do not think this is me defending his drivel.

dode74 wrote:
We know mirrors are supposed to count: it's been said before. Regardless of your distaste for their effect on the numbers, did it ever occur to you that they were set to those numbers with mirrors in mind?

Mirror matches don't provide any information in these cases - if anything, they obscure it. I find the idea that the desired ranges were set with mirror matches in mind to be ridiculous; it is far, far more likely that the people involved in setting the goals didn't understand that they would be creating an illusory regression toward an arbitrary mean.

So, in this particular case, it never occurred to *me* that they set them with that in mind. It's more like a kid that wipes out spectacularly on their bike and then jumps up and says "I meant to do that!".

Now, that said, if someone decides to declare that something is unbalanced then they either need to stick with the definition of balance that everyone was already using or they have to convince everyone else that their definition of balance is better... then work from there. Given that we're into year 9,000 of NTBB iterations and plasmoid is only now looking for someone to discuss a definition for balance... It's another case of top-down progression: conclusion-driven data-hunting rather than data-driven conclusion-development.

_________________
Image


Top 
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Reconsidering the ruling on Khorne?
 Post Posted: Sat Oct 31, 2015 8:22 pm 
Legend
Legend
User avatar

Joined: Thu May 07, 2009 11:15 am
Posts: 2479
Location: Wellington, New Zealand
VoodooMike wrote:
It's more like a kid that wipes out spectacularly on their bike and then jumps up and says "I meant to do that!".


The secret of my success.

_________________
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: Sat Oct 31, 2015 9:57 pm 
Emerging Star
Emerging Star

Joined: Thu Jan 05, 2012 11:21 pm
Posts: 427
VoodooMike wrote:
It's more like a kid that wipes out spectacularly on their bike and then jumps up and says "I meant to do that!".


Nice analogy. Personally, I've had this feeling a lot of times with the powers that be over the years.


Top 
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Reconsidering the ruling on Khorne?
 Post Posted: Sun Nov 01, 2015 10:23 am 
Legend
Legend
User avatar

Joined: Sun May 05, 2002 9:55 am
Posts: 5119
Location: Copenhagen
Hi Darkson,
Quote:
Someone that agrees with your definition?

Actually, I was asked a question by Koadah, and made an (overly?) thorough response.

I was hoping for a conversation about what might consitute a good working definition of balance. Most likely that would start with someone disagreeing with my thoughts above.

What I was not hoping for was just having an arbitrary sentence picked out. Or a discussion about a different subject.

I know it's futile conversation to have, in that it won't change anything. But it might be interesting all the same. I'm sure I haven't covered all the angles in my off-the-top-of-my-head post above.

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: Mon Nov 23, 2015 2:19 pm 
Veteran
Veteran
User avatar

Joined: Thu Aug 12, 2010 9:11 pm
Posts: 177
Ignoring the many pages of off topicness: Would it be sensible to assume that the NAF is unlikely to consider rules changes in the near future due to the looming likelyhood of an official GW release?

_________________
Percy's Trollcast. Possibly coming back if the twins start sleeping.


Top 
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Reconsidering the ruling on Khorne?
 Post Posted: Mon Nov 23, 2015 2:32 pm 
Kommissar Enthusiasmoff
User avatar

Joined: Mon May 08, 2006 11:24 am
Posts: 5491
Location: Swindon, England
Yep.

_________________
NAF President
Founder of SAWBBL, Swindon and Wiltshire's BB League @ sawbbl.uk
Image


Top 
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Reconsidering the ruling on Khorne?
 Post Posted: Mon Nov 23, 2015 7:25 pm 
Legend
Legend
User avatar

Joined: Fri Feb 01, 2008 1:42 pm
Posts: 2103
Location: York
Raveen wrote:
Ignoring the many pages of off topicness: Would it be sensible to assume that the NAF is unlikely to consider rules changes in the near future due to the looming likelyhood of an official GW release?


Will we not have to see if Khorne even make it into BB2?

_________________
My past and current modelling projects showcased on Facebook, Instagram and Twitter.


Top 
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Reconsidering the ruling on Khorne?
 Post Posted: Mon Nov 23, 2015 7:33 pm 
Kommissar Enthusiasmoff
User avatar

Joined: Mon May 08, 2006 11:24 am
Posts: 5491
Location: Swindon, England
Yep.

_________________
NAF President
Founder of SAWBBL, Swindon and Wiltshire's BB League @ sawbbl.uk
Image


Top 
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Reconsidering the ruling on Khorne?
 Post Posted: Mon Nov 23, 2015 7:59 pm 
Legend
Legend
User avatar

Joined: Thu May 07, 2009 11:15 am
Posts: 2479
Location: Wellington, New Zealand
Although...

http://thenafdev.obblm.com/index.php?se ... obj_id=273

(check out the Obblm announcement on the NAF website for details!)

_________________
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: Mon Nov 23, 2015 11:36 pm 
Veteran
Veteran
User avatar

Joined: Thu Aug 12, 2010 9:11 pm
Posts: 177
spubbbba wrote:
Raveen wrote:
Ignoring the many pages of off topicness: Would it be sensible to assume that the NAF is unlikely to consider rules changes in the near future due to the looming likelyhood of an official GW release?


Will we not have to see if Khorne even make it into BB2?


There's good evidence that Khorne are slated for BB2. Things may change between now any any teams being released of course.

_________________
Percy's Trollcast. Possibly coming back if the twins start sleeping.


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

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: