How powerful would 40K AG4 halflings be?

[Chris]

I do play goblins online - however it is very frustrating getting matched tvs - with stunties you actually need inducements!

[DoubleSkulls]

@MattDakka - I think you may be missing my point. I'd actually really like for teams to be more evenly popular, but I don't think the approach your are taking will achieve the goal you've vocalised.

The stated goal is to make tier 3 teams more popular, in this case Halflings. The belief is that making them more effective will make them more popular. I dispute that because from what I can see the popularity of a team is not related to the effectiveness. I've shown data that performance does not have a strong relationship to popularity for weaker teams in tournaments formats (with about 25,000 games worth of data), I've got a very small sample (3000 games) from a tabletop league that questions even the relationship between popularity and performance of stronger teams.

If someone can put together some data to show that the relationship you believe exists between popularity and performance for weaker teams exists, then fine go ahead. I'd love to understand that relationship better - but I don't believe your method will achieve your goal until you make all teams equal (which Plasmoid has clearly stated is not his aim).

So I'm speculating that other reasons drive team selection, fun and flavour being obvious ones, so suggest modifications that increase those factors, rather than effectiveness.

[MattDakka]

@MattDakka - I think you may be missing my point. I'd actually really like for teams to be more evenly popular, but I don't think the approach your are taking will achieve the goal you've vocalised.

Fair enough. We'll never know the answer, because the joke team rosters will not change. I accept your point of view, but mine is different.

The stated goal is to make tier 3 teams more popular, in this case Halflings. The belief is that making them more effective will make them more popular. I dispute that because from what I can see the popularity of a team is not related to the effectiveness. I've shown data that performance does not have a strong relationship to popularity for weaker teams in tournaments formats (with about 25,000 games worth of data), I've got a very small sample (3000 games) from a tabletop league that questions even the relationship between popularity and performance of stronger teams.

I don't dismiss your data, but in the perpetual leagues where I play (FUMBBL and Cyanide FOL) I rarely spot halfling teams. I don't find a different reason besides they are not competitive.

If someone can put together some data to show that the relationship you believe exists between popularity and performance for weaker teams exists, then fine go ahead. I'd love to understand that relationship better - but I don't believe your method will achieve your goal until you make all teams equal (which Plasmoid has clearly stated is not his aim).

Making all the teams equal is nigh-on impossible and probably would reduce the fun of BB, but narrowing the tiers may be viable, at least as house rule in private leagues.

So I'm speculating that other reasons drive team selection, fun and flavour being obvious ones, so suggest modifications that increase those factors, rather than effectiveness.

Maybe, I think that competitiveness is the main reason, at least in the leagues I know. In my opinion adding flavour could add a bit of competitiveness to the team as well. I don't think fun, flavour and competitiveness have to be necessarily separated. If not just ag 4 Halflings, something else like custard pie throwers or some weird positionals (as Goblins have). The roster would be less dull to play and maybe slightly more competitive too (for a tier 3 team).
I think plasmoid could ask to people playing in his league why they don't play joke teams.
Knowing this could help to understand what he has to change in the less played rosters in his league.

[MattDakka]

I do play goblins online - however it is very frustrating getting matched tvs - with stunties you actually need inducements!

I played Goblins as well on BB Cyanide and yes, the TV-pairing is horrible for stunties!
I'm waiting for the missing skills on FUMBBL to use Goblins there as well.

[DoubleSkulls]

I don't dismiss your data, but in the perpetual leagues where I play (FUMBBL and Cyanide FOL) I rarely spot halfling teams.

Perpetual TV based match making is a format that is particularly harsh on stunty teams because they rely on inducements.

Data from the private leagues (or anything not TV based match making) would probably be the best sample to rely on.

[dode74]

OCC Season 12 numbers:

Amazon 2
Chaos - 24
DarkElf - 14
Dwarf - 12
Elf - 8
Goblin - 7
Halfling - 2
HighElf - 9
Human - 15
Khemri - 6
Lizardman - 11
Necromantic - 11
Nurgle - 10
Ogre - 3
Orc - 31
Skaven - 12
Undead - 11
Vampire - 5
WoodElf - 13
Norse - 4

210 teams total.

With 20 races to choose from, 5% (10.5 teams) of each would represent perfect distribution.
Teams with >3% representation (6 or less): Amazon, Halfling, Khemri, Ogre, Vampire, Norse
Teams with >7% representation (15 or more): Chaos, Humans(!), Orcs
The rest of the races have somewhere between 7 and 14 teams representing them.

Chaos and Orcs between them are >25% of the teams. People love the bash, it just doesn't win games in the league as well as agi play (data is for OCC all time play, hence the 9 teams with far more games played):

(I know the tier is wrong for the Vamps - I cba to adjust it and take another screenie)

The question begging to be asked is why Goblins are more popular than Flings and Ogres? They don't win much more, but they have a very different playstyle which is arguably more fun - it's certainly more chaotic! Humans are top 3 in terms of representation, but have the second lowest win% of tier 1 teams. Amazons are very low down the list in terms of representation, and they are recognised as having a dull roster. Perhaps the "fun" of the roster is correlated with the popularity more than the effectiveness (win%) of the team?

[DoubleSkulls]

I'm not sure count of teams per races is a good measure of enduring popularity, number of games played per race seems a more accurate measure to me. Although I don't know OCC rules well enough to comment about how they may effect that.

I think your data seems to back up what I've been saying - popularity in leagues isn't closely tied to performance (I'm not saying there is no relationship, but that its a weak one) and hence "narrowing the tiers" as a means to achieve the goal of increasing racial diversity is flawed. Other factors (lets call it flavour) would appear to be a more significant factor in the selection of teams.

[spubbbba]

A combination of online scheduled and open leagues would probably be the best way to gauge race popularity.

These are not TV matched though maybe FUMBBl's ranked division would be the best source as though there are a few tournaments most games are "pointless". Also you have racial and TV modifiers for CR so if that is your target then using the best races at their TV is not always the best way to get a high rating.

Tabletop stats are difficult as they can well be dictated by what models you have. So the quality of teams available for that particular race or the ease of conversion may be more of an influence than the team's rules.

[plasmoid]

popularity in leagues isn't closely tied to performance (I'm not saying there is no relationship, but that its a weak one) and hence "narrowing the tiers" as a means to achieve the goal of increasing racial diversity is flawed. Other factors (lets call it flavour) would appear to be a more significant factor in the selection of teams.

IMO, the call to prove a solid causality leads nowhere, because the issue is a bit too complex than that. There are a lot of factors in play, and even with convincing stats the data will just get attacked instead. Been there, done that, got the t-shirt in a drawer somewhere.

Fun is a factor. Fluff/appeal is a factor. League composition is a factor. And so is "power". Mind you, power is hard to gauge, because skill and luck is also a factor in how teams perform, but the clear top teams are quite popular, and the clear bottom teams are obviously not. I was the commish of a huge tabletop league for 10 years, and I'm the admin of the MBBL now - and I just don't believe that it's a coincidence that there are always enough wood elf teams to go around, and so few tier 3 teams. That doesn't make the other factors go away at all, but having a decent chance at winning is factor for a lot of coaches.

So, gobbos may derive some popularity from being crazy. Ogres from being bashy. And halflings from being decent in a tournament setting. But I think they would have a much bigger following if they were remotely reliable.

In my experience tournaments and short term league play make chump teams more appealing. Being an underdog for 10 games can be fun. Or having an underdog team in a league where you have 5 other teams can be fun. But in long term league play the fun fades. And getting stomped on for 6 or 12 months with your only team is rough.

That's how I see it anyway.
Cheers
Martin

[MattDakka]

I don't dismiss your data, but in the perpetual leagues where I play (FUMBBL and Cyanide FOL) I rarely spot halfling teams.

Perpetual TV based match making is a format that is particularly harsh on stunty teams because they rely on inducements.

Data from the private leagues (or anything not TV based match making) would probably be the best sample to rely on.

True, but on FUMBBL I don't even find many joke teams in the Ranked division, which doesn't follow the close TV-pairing criteria (after 30 matches you can play against whichever TV you want).

IMO, the call to prove a solid causality leads nowhere, because the issue is a bit too complex than that. There are a lot of factors in play, and even with convincing stats the data will just get attacked instead. Been there, done that, got the t-shirt in a drawer somewhere.

Fun is a factor. Fluff/appeal is a factor. League composition is a factor. And so is "power". Mind you, power is hard to gauge, because skill and luck is also a factor in how teams perform, but the clear top teams are quite popular, and the clear bottom teams are obviously not. I was the commish of a huge tabletop league for 10 years, and I'm the admin of the MBBL now - and I just don't believe that it's a coincidence that there are always enough wood elf teams to go around, and so few tier 3 teams. That doesn't make the other factors go away at all, but having a decent chance at winning is factor for a lot of coaches.

So, gobbos may derive some popularity from being crazy. Ogres from being bashy. And halflings from being decent in a tournament setting. But I think they would have a much bigger following if they were remotely reliable.

In my experience tournaments and short term league play make chump teams more appealing. Being an underdog for 10 games can be fun. Or having an underdog team in a league where you have 5 other teams can be fun. But in long term league play the fun fades. And getting stomped on for 6 or 12 months with your only team is rough.

That's how I see it anyway.
Cheers
Martin

I agree, well put.

[Chris]

True, but on FUMBBL I don't even find many joke teams in the Ranked division, which doesn't follow the close TV-pairing criteria (after 30 matches you can play against whichever TV you want).

I would have to play 30 games?...

[MattDakka]

True, but on FUMBBL I don't even find many joke teams in the Ranked division, which doesn't follow the close TV-pairing criteria (after 30 matches you can play against whichever TV you want).

I would have to play 30 games?...

Well, at 30+ games you have no TV restrictions, 10% for the first 2 matches, 15% for the 3-9 matches etc. here's the full rule:

"The +/- 15% TV Rule Replaced
FUMBBL has changed policy regarding the TV limit that was in place in the ranked division. The intent of the change is to give coaches greater flexibility as to which opponent they play, and is also intended to give stunty teams some leeway to play games with more inducements from time to time.

Effective immediately, the limit has changed to be based on the number of games a team has played. The limits are as follows:

0-2 games, must play within 10%
3-9 games, must play within 15%
10-29 games, must play within (15+(games-10)*2)%
30 games and onward, teams can play any opponent

The 10-29 game range spans from 15% at 10 games to 53% at 29 games in steps of 2% per game (so 15, 17, 19, etc)."

[Lunchab1es]

My first reaction was "Oh heck no they'll be too good!", but the I read on and realized the point was to narrow the tiers for your league (an idea I can get on board with).

To that end, I think upping the Flings to AG4 will bring them to to solid tier 2, with a skilled coach scratching bottom tier 1. They are, after all, still quite squishy and lack G access. I think the simplicity of the change is actually great, rather than adding skill access, changing skills, or adding new positionals. I think it enhances their current play style (dodging, being thrown, etc) without suddenly making them a "good" team, which I really like.

Of course, people's reactions can expectantly be to frown on the halflings being changed to an "OK" team rather than a "bad" team, but I think they will still lack the competitive edge to make them a mainstream team, and still be left to coaches looking for a bit of a challenge or fun.

Let us know how they fair in your league!