Register    Login    Forum    FAQ

Board index » Community Discussion » The NAF




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 54 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2, 3, 4  Next
Author Message
 Post subject: Examining the NAF meta
 Post Posted: Tue Nov 28, 2017 1:09 am 
Legend
Legend
User avatar

Joined: Sun May 05, 2002 9:55 am
Posts: 5178
Location: Copenhagen
>>>Rewritten on the 18th of december
Hi all,
I've been working for a while now on some serious nerdery, and I finally have some results to post. As recently appointed coach for the Danish national team, I created a rather elaborate excel sheet in order to analyze the EuroBowl meta. Once created, I figured that I might as well use it to scrutinize the NAF-res-meta in general.

Before I get started I should probably say that I'm not a proper statistician. I know that when working with performance averages, one should list a range rather than a single number. Unfortunately, while I can calculate individual ranges, I don't know how to add a list of ranges together, so here I've just posted the averages. I'm also working with CRP stats rather than BB2016 stats - and the stats no doubt originate from tournaments using all kinds of different rules. If you can stomach all that, read on.

0) First, I took the NAF data for racial match-ups from Ian Williams (doubleskulls) site: naf.talkfantasyfootball.org/lrb6 (last updated on november 2016) - and I entered those win percentages into my elaborate spreadsheet, representing roughly 113.500 games played.

The results/win-percentages are from LRB6/CRP NAF tournaments. Presumably mainly resurrection rules and 1.100K. Some of the stats are from tournaments using tier-bonuses, but I have no way of isolating those. Tier tweaked tournaments will mean that the strongest teams will look slightly weaker than they are, and weak teams will look slightly stronger.

First table is straight up win percentages (ties count as half-a-win).
The second column (not repeated in any of the following lists) shows how large a percentage of the total number of games were played by each race.
Code:
   Win-% in Swiss   number of teams
Wood Elf   55,9   7,2%
Undead      55,5   8,1%
Lizardmen   54,2   5,9%
Dark Elf   54,1   6,8%
Amazon      53,2   3,8%!
CDs      52,3   5,5%
Norse      52,1   6,4%
Elf      51,8   2,5%!
Dwarfs      51,5   7,0%
Skaven      51,3   6,6%
Necro      51,3   4,6%
----------------------------
High Elf   49,5   2,0%
Khemri      48,3   2,0%
Orcs      47,8   8,7%!
Pact      47,6   2,2%
Human      47,1   4,4%
Slann      46,9   1,6%
Underworld   45,6   1,6%
Nurgle      45,4   1,6%
Vampire      45,1   1,4%
Chaos      44,8   2,4%
Halfling   36,1   2,5%
Gobbo      33,1   3,2%
Ogre      32,2   2,2%


Not a lot of surprises here, I'd imagine.
I don't know how to check for the strength of the correllation between quality (i.e. power) and quantity, but if we ignore the tier 3 teams (who are abviously not taken solely for winning) then the remaing teams ought to come up around 4.4% of the time on average. Notably, just 2 of the 11 winning teams are less prevalent than this, while just 1 of the 13 losing teams is overrepresented - The Orcs. This -might- indicate that the popular theory that Orcs attract new players, who in turn drive down their stats, could be true. If it is then Orcs might have to be treated as better than their stats indicate.

--------------------------------------

1) So far, so good. First, I was curious to examine the impact of Swiss pairing. Swiss pairing has been the predominant principle behind tournament schedules for a long time, and I think most (but not all) of the stats are from Swiss matching. The result of Swiss pairing is logically that weaker teams get matched against other weak teams, so their stats will improve as the tournament goes on. And in the same vein powerful teams will get matched against other powerful teams - meaning that some of them will lose or tie.

So, I set up the excel sheet to let each team face a meta-composition reflecting each opposing races share of the meta - in essence letting each team face every other team, rather than a (swiss) biased selection. Assuming that the individual race-vs-race winpercentages does not change, this is the result.:¨
Code:
      Swiss   Random
Wood Elf   55,9   +0,91
Undead      55,5   +0,87
Lizardmen   54,2   +0,50
Dark Elf   54,1   +0,46
Amazon      53,2   +0,62
CDs      52,3   +0,32
Norse      52,1   +0,08
Elf      51,8   -0,06
Dwarfs      51,5   +0,25
Skaven      51,3   +0,59
Necro      51,3   +0,11
High Elf   49,5   -0,66
Khemri      48,3   -0,67
Orcs      47,8   +0,07
Pact      47,6   -0,59
Human      47,1   -0,49
Slann      46,9   -1,16
Underworld   45,6   -1,70
Nurgle      45,4   -0,76
Vampire      45,1   -1,14
Chaos      44,8   -0,50
Halfling   36,1   -1,82
Gobbo      33,1   -2,06
Ogre      32,2   -1,86


As a general rule, it is fairly unsurprising that in random pairing (reflecting the metacomposition of teams) the strongest teams would have done better than they did in swiss pairing, while the weaker teams would have done even worse than they did in swiss pairing - most notably the tier 2 and tier 3 teams. And then there is a middle group which goes either way.

Genrally speaking, as expected, swiss pairings make the strongest teams look weaker than they are, and the weak teams look stronger than they are.

--------------------------------------

1a) I then wanted to examine a further bias in the stats: Mirror matches. Simply put, mirror matches are data chaff. It will pull the results of any team towards 50. Which to me is problematic, because the more powerful (and prolific) a team is, the more mirror matches there will be. Imagine a meta with a team so broken that it beats everything else. With nothing else worth playing, this team will end up playing against itself with an innocent looking win percentage of 50%. Perfect balance...

I know that the BBRC included mirror matches in their original data, and by extension, one could argue that they chose to make mirror matches part of their definition of balance. To my mind, there was no choice, just neccessity, because their was no possible alternative. Back then, there was no way to filter out the mirror matches, so they had to be left in. Anyway, it was easy enough to remove the mirror matches from the data, and the result was this:
Code:
      Swiss   Random   NoMirr   TOTAL
Wood Elf   55,9   +0,91   +0,52   57,33
Undead      55,5   +0,87   +0,46   56,93
Lizardmen   54,2   +0,50   +0,29   54,99
Dark Elf   54,1   +0,46   +0,33   54,89
Amazon      53,2   +0,62   +0,15   53,97
CDs      52,3   +0,32   +0,15   52,77
Norse      52,1   +0,08   +0,15   52,33
Skaven      51,3   +0,59   +0,13   52,02
Dwarfs      51,5   +0,25   +0,14   51,89
Elf      51,8   -0,06   +0,05   51,79
Necro      51,3   +0,11   +0,07   51,48
---------------------------------------------
High Elf   49,5   -0,66   -0,02   48,82
Orcs      47,8   +0,07   -0,20   47,67
Khemri      48,3   -0,67   -0,05   47,58
Pact      47,6   -0,59   -0,07   46,94
Human      47,1   -0,49   -0,16   46,45
Slann      46,9   -1,16   -0,17   45,67
Nurgle      45,4   -0,76   -0,11   44,55
Chaos      44,8   -0,50   -0,14   44,16
Vampire      45,1   -1,14   -0,08   43,88
Underworld   45,6   -1,70   -0,10   43,80
Halfling   36,1   -1,82   -0,40   33,88
Gobbo      33,1   -2,06   -0,63   30,31
Ogre      32,2   -1,86   -0,43   29,91


At the risk of being controversial - now you know why Wood Elfs and Undead feel so friggin hard to play against. Because they are!!

As you can see, the impact of mirror matches is fairly neglible for most teams, except for the strongest teams (Wood Elf, Undead, Lizardmen and Dark Elfs) and the weakest teams (Halfling, Gobbo, Ogre). The difference is basically determined by how far a team is from a 50% performance, and how many games they have played. Orcs (again) stand out a bit due to the sheer number of games played by orcs.

--------------------------------------

2) So, Swiss Pairing means a difference of almost 1 percentage point for the best teams and 2 for the worst, while mirror matches account for roughly half a percentage point for the best and worst teams. Interesting as that is, I go back to including mirror matches for the next step. It doesn't matter much anyway, because the next step is about moving all teams closer to 50% wins, and if they are, then including or excluding mirror matches makes very little difference.

Now, while I did do all this math because I was just plain curious about swiss and mirror matches, I was also thinking about creating some "tier bonus" tournament rules that would (hopefully) bring unprecedented parity to said tournament - which in turn would make teams equally popular. To simulate this, I started by defining a new meta, assigning the non-tier 3 teams an equal share in the 209.000 games. Tier 3 teams kept their individual number of games, as tier 3 teams are (arguably) not taken for their chance to win.

In such a meta, given unchanged race-vs-race average win percentages, the projected win percentages would be:
Code:
      Swiss   Random-pairing   =Meta
Wood Elf   55,9   +0,91   56,81   58,74
Undead      55,5   -0,06   56,37   58,01
Lizardmen   54,2   +0,50   54,70   56,37
Dark Elf   54,1   +0,46   54,56   56,10
Amazon      53,2   +0,62   53,82   56,07
Norse      52,1   +0,08   52,18   53,91
Skaven      51,3   +0,59   51,89   53,84
CDs      52,3   +0,32   52,62   53,80
Elf      51,8   -0,06   51,74   52,93
Necro      51,3   +0,11   51,41   52,91
Dwarfs      51,5   +0,25   51,75   52,83
High Elf   49,5   -0,66   48,84   50,63
Orcs      47,8   +0,07   47,87   49,00*
Pact      47,6   -0,59   47,01   48,72
Khemri      48,3   -0,67   47,63   48,50
Human      47,1   -0,49   46,45   48,16
Slann      46,9   -1,16   45,74   47,53
Underworld   45,6   -1,70   43,90   46,36
Vampire      45,1   -1,14   43,96   45,96
Nurgle      45,4   -0,76   44,64   45,68
Chaos      44,8   -0,50   44,30   44,45
Halfling   36,1   -1,82   34,28   35,54
Gobbo      33,1   -2,06   30,94   32,07
Ogre      32,2   -1,86   30,34   31,85


(*As noted above, the stats for orcs may be misleading).

--------------------------------------

3) Finally I used a feature in my spreadsheet to simulate the effect of adding a tier bonus that would increase (or decrease) a teams performance. For example, would what happen if Necro get a (say) +2% increase across the board. Or Wood Elfs got a -3% decrease. (In that case, Necro vs Wood Elfs would be modified by +5%).

Naturally, it will take guesstimation to figure out what kind of actual bonus would result in (say) that +2% increase for necro. That work is yet to be done - but we do have a few pointers from past tier tweaking tournaments like the EuroBowl. Furthermore, I know that it most likely isn't possible to create tweaks with such a uniform effect against all those (very different) opposing races. But I've tried to make up for that by trying to get all (non tier 3) teams quite close to 50% wins - in reality I ended up between 50.02% and 51.63%. That way there is some room for error while still leaving things pretty well balanced. (I put tier 3 close to 40%).

Note that I didn't just add or subtract numbers in one go. Instead I tweaked gradually, and watched how changes in each race affected the performance of other races. Admittedly, I could have gotten better results (by that I mean even closer to 50%), but partly I wanted some "tiers" rather than 24 individual tweaks. And partly I didn't want to kid myself about the precision of the numbers anyway. As it happened, the teams fell pretty neatly into 8 tiers, containing 2-5 teams each.
Code:
      Swiss   Random-pairing   =Meta   Tweak:   Result
Wood Elf   55,9   +0,91   56,81   58,74   -4   51,44
Undead      55,5   -0,06   56,37   58,01   -4   50,71
Lizardmen   54,2   +0,50   54,70   56,37   -2   51,07
Dark Elf   54,1   +0,46   54,56   56,10   -2   50,80
Amazon      53,2   +0,62   53,82   56,07   -2   50,77
Norse      52,1   +0,08   52,18   53,91    0   50,61
Skaven      51,3   +0,59   51,89   53,84    0   50,54
CDs      52,3   +0,32   52,62   53,80    0   50,50
Elf      51,8   -0,06   51,74   52,93   +2   51,63
Necro      51,3   +0,11   51,41   52,91   +2   51,61
Dwarfs      51,5   +0,25   51,75   52,83   +2   51,53
High Elf   49,5   -0,66   48,84   50,63   +4   51,33
Orcs      47,8   +0,07   47,87   49,00*   +4*   49,69*
Pact      47,6   -0,59   47,01   48,72   +6   51,42
Khemri      48,3   -0,67   47,63   48,50   +6   51,20
Human      47,1   -0,49   46,45   48,16   +6   50,86
Slann      46,9   -1,16   45,74   47,53   +6   50,22
Underworld   45,6   -1,70   43,90   46,36   +8   51,06
Vampire      45,1   -1,14   43,96   45,96   +8   50,66
Nurgle      45,4   -0,76   44,64   45,68   +8   50,38
Chaos      44,8   -0,50   44,30   44,45   +8   50,02
Halfling   36,1   -1,82   34,28   35,54   +8   40,24
Gobbo      33,1   -2,06   30,94   32,07   +12   40,76
Ogre      32,2   -1,86   30,34   31,85   +12   40,55


I'm well aware that there are so many uncertainties built into these numbers, that the results have to be taken with a grain of salt. Nothing has been proven here. But they do provide a guideline for getting the right team into each tier as well as understanding how much each team need to be shifted.

Let me just summarize the 8 tiers here:
Tier 0 (-4): Undead, Wood Elf,
Tier 1 (-2): Amazon, Dark Elf, Lizardmen
Tier 2 ( 0): CDs, Norse, Skaven
Tier 3 (+2): Dwarf, Elf, Necro,
Tier 4 (+4): High, Orc*
Tier 5 (+6): Pact, Human, Slann, Khemri
Tier 6 (+8): Nurgle, Chaos, Vampire, Underworld, Halflings
Tier 7 (+12): Gobbo, Ogre

It should be noted that mathematically, it is the differences between the tiers that matters - so one might equally well have wood elfs at 0 modification, and then tier 7 at +16% rather than +12%. As a matter of personal taste though, I'd rather take away a bit from the top teams than heaping on even more bonuses on the bottom teams.
----------------------------------
3) Finally, it has been suggested that tiering rules are essentially a pointless endeavour, because they'll just push stats around rather than create any actual balance. In a nutshell, if teams are strong against some teams and weak against others, won't a boost or nerf across the board run the risk of making things less balanced rather than more balanced?

It is true that rules such as these will never get rid of baised individual match-ups. But overall balance can still be improved greatly, even if it won't be perfect. I tried my best to look into what would happen, if the bonuses described above were succesfully applied.

First, it is worth noticing that if this works, then all teams are very close to equal, assuming random opponents are assigned from a uniform meta. But has this come at the price of increased imbalance to individual teams? I've calculated 3 scores in order to look into this:

First, the sum of how far each race is from the perfect winpercentage (50% between most teams, but 60% for a normal team against tier 3 and 40% for the tier 3 team against a normal team.

Secondly, the same stat but for the now tier tweaked win percentages. Comparing the 2 stats we see that all teams have come quite a bit closer to the mark.

The third breaks down the change into individual match-ups, showing how many match-ups have had improved balance and how many would become less balanced. On average around 3 match-ups will have improved for each that is now less balanced.
Code:
IMBALANCE CALCULATION
      NAFimb   TWEimb   +/-
Wood Elf   209,5    84,7   17/5
Dark Elf   150,2    56,0   16/5
Undead      181,3    51,1   20/2
Lizardmen   164,5    89,9   16/5
Necro      113,1    54,7   16/5
Norse      142,2    80,4   16/5
Dwarfs      121,7   100,7   11/10
CDs      111,9    78,9   12/9
Skaven      131,7    69,3   14/7
Orcs      104,5    65,3   14/6
Human      122,7    53,9   16/4
Amazon      190,1    73,1   18/3
High Elf   157,3    91,1   19/3
Underworld   164,2    85,2   15/4
Nurgle      157,2   105,0   13/6
Khemri      133,8    91,2   13/7
Elf      134,4    78,2   16/5
Chaos      148,3    81,9   13/6
Gobbo      213,4    83,4   18/4
Halfling   176,5   102,5   14/5
Ogre      230,8   118,6   18/3
Pact      113,3    68,7   13/6
Slann      163,0    84,8   16/4
Vampire      154,8    78,0   13/6
AVG      153,8    80,3   15,3/5,2


All in all, if the numbers hold then the overall balance will have improved quite a bit.
Cheers
Martin

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


Last edited by plasmoid on Mon Dec 18, 2017 1:15 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Top 
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Examining the NAF meta
 Post Posted: Tue Nov 28, 2017 10:01 am 
Veteran
Veteran
User avatar

Joined: Thu Apr 24, 2014 2:03 pm
Posts: 266
Location: Bristol
That's an amazing job :o

_________________
Image
Champion: Chimera Cup '17
Runner-Up: Exebowl '15; GertBowl '17; Exebowl '17
Stunty Cup: Exebowl '14; Bubba Bowl '17
Others: Crumb-bowl '16 (SChWing); SAWBBowl '17 (SChWing), Christmas Chainsaw Massacre '17 (Chainsaw CAS)
Wooden Spoon: Gert Bowl '14


Top 
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Examining the NAF meta
 Post Posted: Tue Nov 28, 2017 1:32 pm 
Super Star
Super Star

Joined: Thu Feb 09, 2012 4:12 pm
Posts: 1000
It has already taken longer that i expected for THEM to find this thread :)


Top 
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Examining the NAF meta
 Post Posted: Tue Nov 28, 2017 2:04 pm 
Legend
Legend
User avatar

Joined: Wed Dec 10, 2008 3:59 pm
Posts: 6203
Location: The Fast Lane
"THEM"?

_________________
Image

The Exiles Tournaments use the Icepelt rulebook, for complete BB rules and fluff. Download here.
Hired Goon for the NAF (RTO for South West England and Wales) lunchmoney@thenaf.net
@Lunchmoney_Al for me @ExilesBBLeague for #TeamExiles news


Top 
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Examining the NAF meta
 Post Posted: Tue Nov 28, 2017 3:22 pm 
Emerging Star
Emerging Star
User avatar

Joined: Sun May 01, 2005 11:17 am
Posts: 335
Location: Brugge
This is genius. Or at least it is to me, as a non-mathematician, but interested in an open and diverse tournament-scene.

Looks to me like a first step; and a possible second step has been mentioned; how does a TO translate a "-4%" or "+8%" or ... into tier-rules? Anybody any suggestions?

_________________
Those who will not follow are doomed to lead.
--*--Founder League of Rodents--*--
--*--Commissioner BBBF Online League--*--


Top 
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Examining the NAF meta
 Post Posted: Tue Nov 28, 2017 4:10 pm 
Super Star
Super Star

Joined: Wed May 27, 2015 10:38 am
Posts: 1020
Location: Paradise Stadium, where the pitch is green and the cheerleaders are pretty.
El Hombre wrote:
Looks to me like a first step; and a possible second step has been mentioned; how does a TO translate a "-4%" or "+8%" or ... into tier-rules? Anybody any suggestions?


The only way find this out is playing a LOT of games.

Interestingly, the Eur'Open and Eurobowl tournaments have had the same ruleset for the past two years. I'm talking about this:
Eurobowl 2016+2017 Rules wrote:
Tier 1
6 normal skills
Wood Elf, Undead, Lizardmen, Skaven, Dwarf, Chaos Dwarf, Orcs, Dark Elf, Norse, Amazon

Tier 2
6 normal skills, 1 double skill and 20K extra cash
Chaos, Chaos Pact, Human, Khemri, Slann, Necromantic, High Elf, Elf, Nurgle

Tier 3
6 normal skills, 1 double skill and 50K extra cash
Underworld, Halfling, Goblin, Ogre, Vampire

I know for a fact that in this time, many smaller tournaments have played with the same rules. So in total, that means hundreds or even a thousand or so games have been played with that ruleset.
Might be interesting to go through the tournament descriptions for the past couple years, find all games played with those rules, and compare each race's performance under those rules to the "global" performance from the CRP list.
It'll still be noisy, but there'll be some signal in the noise.

Caveat would be, this would only be meaningful for evaluating the effect of the Eurobowl ruleset as a whole. I doubt it's possible to have something as granular as "One extra skill adds 1% to a team's winning percentage vs teams which don't get that". Just because one skill more or less help some teams more than others.

_________________
"It's 2+ and I have a reroll. Chill out. I've got this!"
Image


Top 
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Examining the NAF meta
 Post Posted: Tue Nov 28, 2017 10:55 pm 
Legend
Legend
User avatar

Joined: Sun May 05, 2002 9:55 am
Posts: 5178
Location: Copenhagen
Hi all :D
Rolo - yeah - I know that the ruleset has been used quite a few places, but I'll leave that investigation to someone else. I think it would be massively time consuming, not to mention that for data to be statistically significant there'd have to be a lot of games.

El_Hombre said:
Quote:
how does a TO translate a "-4%" or "+8%" or ... into tier-rules? Anybody any suggestions?

I doubt it can be done in any scientifically sound way - it would have to be guesstimation.
The Danish tournament scene has a long tradition of tier-tweaking, and as those tournament rules have developed, so has a rule of thumb that the difference between tiers is roughly equalized by 1 skill - i.e. 1 skill = 2% (which really is 4, because if you go up by 2 to 52%, then your opponent effectively drops to 48%).

Another indicator is the Eurobowl rules that Rolo mentions. Under those rules Necro gain 1 doubles skill and 1 normal skill, which has made them almost as popular as the top 4 teams - so, presumably a performance boost of around 3%-4%.

So that's a start. But there may well not be any way to proceed any further.
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: Examining the NAF meta
 Post Posted: Wed Nov 29, 2017 10:51 am 
Star Player
Star Player
User avatar

Joined: Mon Dec 22, 2008 8:12 pm
Posts: 675
Location: Oxford, UK
Thanks for taking account of mirror matches + random pairing- that's been an issue for a while.

If your spreadsheet can stand it- you could extract the first game of a swiss as random pairing. That should give you a bit more data on those. As I suspect most of your random pairing tourneys are pre 2010?


Top 
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Examining the NAF meta
 Post Posted: Wed Nov 29, 2017 11:49 am 
Super Star
Super Star
User avatar

Joined: Wed May 03, 2006 10:58 pm
Posts: 813
Location: Cambridgeshire
Interesting analysis! Good work!

At the risk of throwing a statistical spanner into the works, surely many of these match results are already taken from events where there is racial tiering? Hence, the top teams are actually even better than calculated here, as they are already functioning at a 'disadvantage' in many tournaments.

You would have to repeat the analysis using only the results from flat tournaments... if that is possible!

_________________
NAFC 2014. Glowworm: "PeteW is definitely hotter than Lunchmoney."
Image


Top 
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Examining the NAF meta
 Post Posted: Wed Nov 29, 2017 3:36 pm 
Legend
Legend
User avatar

Joined: Sun May 05, 2002 9:55 am
Posts: 5178
Location: Copenhagen
Hi Mubo and Pete,
unfortunately my spreadsheet is not that sophisticated - and neither is the source of my data.

The data is from Doubleskulls site, sorted by "LRB6", meaning that it is just win-tie-loss data from the inception of LRB6 and until november 2016.

So - Mubo, what I've done is just set up the total win percentages for everything vs everything, as well as the number of games played by each race, in order to simulate how a team ought to do in a completely random pairing in that meta.

And yup Pete, there are plenty of tiered tournaments, all tiered differently, so only safe conclusion there is indeed that the best teams are likely to be even better, and the worst teams even worse - but who knows by how much. I wouldn't know how to dig out the untiered tournaments, but if someone were to do that, then there is the built in problem that they'd be looking at much fewer games, so results would not be very statistically reliable.

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: Examining the NAF meta
 Post Posted: Thu Nov 30, 2017 7:34 am 
Emerging Star
Emerging Star
User avatar

Joined: Thu Oct 07, 2010 9:03 am
Posts: 434
Plasmoid wrote:
Before I get started I should probably say that I'm not a proper statistician. I know that when working with performance averages, one should list a range rather than a single number. Unfortunately, while I can calculate individual ranges, I don't know how to add a list of ranges together, so here I've just posted the averages. I'm also working with CRP stats rather than BB2016 stats - and the stats no doubt originate from tournaments using all kinds of different rules. If you can stomach all that, read on.

I like this. You say "I don't actually know how to do statistics but I'm going to make it up as I go along, so if you're ok with playing a math LARP with me then keep reading!". Given that you draw a whole bunch of conclusions from your made up statistics work you pretty clearly don't know that you don't know what you're doing.

lunchmoney wrote:
"THEM"?

He means those of us who actually do know how to do stats and know math beyond a grade 4 level... who tend to criticize this sort of thing as large-scale lies told with numbers at worst, or the mathematical equivalent of a chimpanzee finger-painting with his own feces at best.

plasmoid wrote:
I doubt it can be done in any scientifically sound way - it would have to be guesstimation.

Quite literally nothing you do is scientifically or statistically sound.. saying you admitted that you don't really know statistics doesn't really excuse proceeding to pass off your floudering as statistics, which is precisely what you're doing. You've had plenty of time to learn to do it properly, but you forgo that in favour of just looking for a less educated audience for what is, quite objectively, trash math.

Understand this: when people who don't know how to do the science just make it up and present it to other people who also don't know how to do it, they're not creating progess, they're creating epistemological regression. It's where you find the origins of things like the Flat Earth society, or anti-vaxxer movements: the blind leading the blind.

If you know you don't know how to do something then learn how to do that something or stop pretending. At a certain point it stops being simple ignorance and becomes deliberate negligence, and at that point its no longer just silliness... it's criminal.

_________________
Image


Top 
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Examining the NAF meta
 Post Posted: Thu Nov 30, 2017 9:09 am 
Super Star
Super Star
User avatar

Joined: Wed May 03, 2006 10:58 pm
Posts: 813
Location: Cambridgeshire
@VoodooMike

O_O

Crikey. That's rather abrasive! Was it really necessary?

I quite enjoyed the post, and appreciated his honesty. Despite not being particularly significant or reliable, it still made interesting ready, and I would say, positively contributed to my blood bowl enjoyment.

Your post did not positively contribute to my existence at all. In any way.

_________________
NAFC 2014. Glowworm: "PeteW is definitely hotter than Lunchmoney."
Image


Top 
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Examining the NAF meta
 Post Posted: Thu Nov 30, 2017 9:39 am 
Emerging Star
Emerging Star
User avatar

Joined: Thu Oct 07, 2010 9:03 am
Posts: 434
PeteW wrote:
Crikey. That's rather abrasive! Was it really necessary?

Absolutely, yes. This is a recurring problem with plasmoid - trying to pass off fabrication as truth. For anyone who values the truth, that's a pretty big deal.

PeteW wrote:
I quite enjoyed the post, and appreciated his honesty. Despite not being particularly significant or reliable, it still made interesting ready, and I would say, positively contributed to my blood bowl enjoyment.

I'm sure some people enjoy being "furries", or pretending there's a Bigfoot. So long as they keep their roleplaying to places where everybody knows it's make believe meant to be funny, not reality, then that's peachy. It's not so peachy when they don't.

PeteW wrote:
Your post did not positively contribute to my existence at all. In any way.

Your existence is based on ignorance, then.

_________________
Image


Top 
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Examining the NAF meta
 Post Posted: Thu Nov 30, 2017 10:05 am 
Veteran
Veteran
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jul 20, 2014 9:14 pm
Posts: 259
Location: UK
VoodooMike wrote:
PeteW wrote:
Crikey. That's rather abrasive! Was it really necessary?

Absolutely, yes. This is a recurring problem with plasmoid - trying to pass off fabrication as truth. For anyone who values the truth, that's a pretty big deal.

PeteW wrote:
I quite enjoyed the post, and appreciated his honesty. Despite not being particularly significant or reliable, it still made interesting ready, and I would say, positively contributed to my blood bowl enjoyment.

I'm sure some people enjoy being "furries", or pretending there's a Bigfoot. So long as they keep their roleplaying to places where everybody knows it's make believe meant to be funny, not reality, then that's peachy. It's not so peachy when they don't.

PeteW wrote:
Your post did not positively contribute to my existence at all. In any way.

Your existence is based on ignorance, then.


You need to take a deep breath. You're coming off as someone who has an axe to grind here. You didn't agree with his post? Fine. Drop the pathetic insults and make a reasoned counter argument about WHY the methodology is flawed, rather than spiteful bitching.

_________________
Scrumpy Scramble (2017), Foul Bowl 2016, SAWBBowl 2017- International Glowworm Award
Auld World Masters 2017- Most Casualties
Chimera Cup 2017- Most Touchdowns
Image


Top 
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Examining the NAF meta
 Post Posted: Thu Nov 30, 2017 10:22 am 
Emerging Star
Emerging Star
User avatar

Joined: Sun Nov 27, 2011 10:24 pm
Posts: 429
nightwing wrote:
You need to take a deep breath. You're coming off as someone who has an axe to grind here. You didn't agree with his post? Fine. Drop the pathetic insults and make a reasoned counter argument about WHY the methodology is flawed, rather than spiteful bitching.


The problem is that he did counterargument and he is perfectly sound and correct from a scientifical, mathematical and statistical point of view.

But his total lack of use of cognitive sciences in the presentation of his argument makes it unpersuasive, counterpersuasive even.
Facts never convinced anyone.

In fact he just sent most of us in cognitive dissonance and made the argument of plasmoid more persuasive by contrast.

While advocating for science he ignores the sciences of the mind.... how ironic.


Top 
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
 
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 54 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2, 3, 4  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: