Koadah wrote:And he just happened to come up with the kind of changes that you think he should have? \o/ for coincidence. Or was it gut feel.
NTBB has a LOT of varied changes. I have no doubt some of them will match up with what the data suggests should be done, and many more will not. You know what they say about broken clocks...
Koadah wrote:If you play enough games you'll have enough data. If you don't you won't. If I understand you and Dode correctly the more games the smaller your margin of error. The larger your margin of error the less confidence and the better case for the manual override.
The underlined part is where your understanding apparently failed. Not having enough data does not give you carte blanche to just make crap up and say it's based on more than making crap up.
Koadah wrote:But what i'm asking is where are your rules? What data do you have to back them up?
Part 2 of a creationist style argument? I don't have any alternate rules to offer you, so I'm not sure what I'm supposed to back the non-existent rules up with... not having the answer doesn't mean its impossible or even unreasonable to point out the error in someone else's answer. Having blanks in our knowledge is not an invitation to fill them with whatever speculation and wishful thinking you happen to have in your left pocket.
Koadah wrote:It seems to me that Amazons and wood elves are pretty under used considering that they are winningest teams around. Maybe definitions of 'good' vary.
9 out of 10 people who taste-tested what later became "New Coke" preferred it over what later became "Coke Classic", yet when they pulled coke off the shelves and replaced it with new coke people refused to drink it. Human behavior is based on
perception of fact, not actual fact, so it bears little relevance when examining those facts. Rational people can get past their erroneous perceptions while less rational people are slaves to them, instead.
Given that NTBB states its goal as "narrowing the tiers", we're not really worried about what people guess the tiers of teams are, we're more worried about the specific definition of those tiers, which is straight win%s. That's data discussion, not guesstimation.
Koadah wrote:What do you guys have that is better than CRP? Where is your evidence?
What do you have that is better than CRP+? Where is your evidence?
What do you have that is better than NTBB? etc etc
Again, irrelevant to the conversation - I don't need to tell you how and why the universe was created to argue against the theory it was willed into creation by God. I don't need to solve "5 + 5" to tell you the answer is not "-4", I can just say "you never get a negative number when you add two positive numbers together".
Koadah wrote:I would guess that they kept it simple for easy calculation on TT. If the computer is doing it it can be as hairy as you like.
My guess would be they have no grasp of the long-term effect of skills or stats on win%, so it's rather arbitrary. The only way to have an accurate TV calculation that really tells you what two team's relative chance of victory is, barring coach skill, is to calculate out the actual effects of those skills and stats on win%, which thus far nobody has managed to do... if they did, then you could very easily refactor the rosters using that information to make them line up correctly (or appropriately incorrectly if you're a fan of the tiers).
MattDakka wrote:Let's imagine a short private league (10-12 matches long) with 9 Dwarf teams and 1 Amazon team: do you think Amazons will win it roughly 50% of their matches, assuming coaches of equal skill?
If the answer is yes, then they designed well the game, if the answer is no, then their game design is heavily flawed.
This is not necessarily true, Matt. Consider one of the major game design paradigms that we've seen get very popular in the last decade... the "rock, paper, scissors" design. The idea is that nothing beats everything - everything is strong against something, and weak against another, forcing a form of diversification. Now, apply this to your question: "what if the league has 9 rocks, and one scissors... will the scissors win 50% of the time?" no, it'll lose every time... but that isn't a design flaw, just a compositional flaw in the league. If you had an infinite open league, you'd find their w/l/d rate would be approximately even, however... as composition imbalances would result in an influx of whatever element is missing, because for a short time that element would give people an edge, and so on.
You can make your same argument, though, by pointing out that in an environment where all teams are represented... at the same TV and within the same tier, the win% differences don't lack statistical significance... though each tier is ridiculously wide, and typically about even with that of a coin toss, unless they have a handicap, as anything but tier 1 does.
Darkson wrote:Thankfully a 50% balanced game isn't what was intended. If you want one, I suggest you find a perfectly weighted coin, and play heads & tails.
Or Chess, or Go, or some equally trivial and strategy-lacking game!