Narrow Tier BB - 2012

[koadah]

The data might be historical data for individual player progression parsed into SPP gained per game over individual player types. FUMBBL may well have that data, but I have no idea how to get it.

"Common sense" is hardly common and rarely sensible, and is certainly no way to assess statistical data due to the multitude of biases to which it is subject, which is why I take your common sense answer with a pinch of salt - it is mere speculation based on how you think things work. I'm not saying you're necessarily wrong, but that you have no basis on which to conclude you are right.

I am pretty sure that you could get that data from the API at least for the most recent data (5 years?).
When it comes to popularity I don't know how much the data is really going to prove. I would guess that people chose their teams based on how they feel and what they believe rather than analysing the data. So even if the 'common sense' is complete horse poo it could still be what is causing people to choose one team over others.

[koadah]

I don't think dode really expects anyone to produce those figures. He just gets some sort of perverse pleasure out of sayinng -
"prove it with statistics" any time anyone says anything without them. It is really getting old tbh. But apparently we are not allowed to discuss BB without statistics even when anybody that played lrb4 can say in no uncertain terms that those two races were both dominant and easy to build. The whole reason Claw was made so accessible in the first place was to stop this. But anyway fortunately plasmoid will just do what he thinks is best anyway without listening to this perpetual need for statistical analysis which goes no where and keeps running threads into the ground.

I'll disagree with your terminology though. It's not so much that they were easier to build but that people expected them be more durable. No stats to back that up though.

[dode74]

I don't think dode really expects anyone to produce those figures. He just gets some sort of perverse pleasure out of sayinng -
"prove it with statistics" any time anyone says anything without them. It is really getting old tbh. But apparently we are not allowed to discuss BB without statistics even when anybody that played lrb4 can say in no uncertain terms that those two races were both dominant and easy to build. The whole reason Claw was made so accessible in the first place was to stop this. But anyway fortunately plasmoid will just do what he thinks is best anyway without listening to this perpetual need for statistical analysis which goes no where and keeps running threads into the ground.

I don't think garion expects anyone to gainsay what he has to say based on any sort of rational analysis. He just gets some perverse pleasure out of saying "but I saw it happen" even though he knows full well that the plural of example is not data. It's really rather short-sighted tbh. Apparently we're not allowed to look at a game which is based entirely on risk management and probabilities in terms of the actual tool which is best suited to the job of analysing such things: statistics. Fortunately plasmoid has a good grasp of stats and probabilities and provides the numbers for what he thinks rather than just throwing ideas out there and getting upset when people take critical looks at them.

koadah - if you are able to get that data then that would be excellent. I'm not sure what it would prove in terms of what plasmoid is trying to do, but it would make for some good comparisons between CRP and LRB4. I would agree with "people expect them to be more durable", and the numbers based on cas taken vs games played back that up.

rather than the Orcs and Dwarfs having it all their own way like they used to (as it is pretty hard to deny that they were rather good out of the box and didn't need many skills to get better)

Nobody is denying that. What I am saying is that it is entirely speculative to suggest that ease of build was a reason they were chosen so often, particularly when Chaos was chosen more.

[Kort]

Quick comment on the Orc nerf: I agree with 90k Blitzers, it is a change that is long overdue, but then I would also add a minor buff with 60k Throwers.

[PairODice]

Martin,

To avoid the Ma 7 buff with Amazon Catchers would Sprint be enough enticement for coaches to choose the positional while not upsetting the roster as much? the change would seem more in line with your objectives.

[plasmoid]

Hi PairODice,
thanks for the suggestion. Quite clever.
But I've kind of fallen in love with the DC solution, which also doesn't help their running game much, but does give a little to their passing game.
Cheers
Martin

[plasmoid]

Hi all - especially Ian and Dode,

Games over 2000TV Nurgle have about the same number of games played as Orcs and Dwarves combined, and Chaos have about 25% more than that. Seems like a pretty dominating position to me that I'd be looking to fix.

Ian, you're referencing CRP stats right? I know it's all Chaos and Nurgle (and CDs?) in CRP.
I did say LRB4 FUMBBL wasn't as bad.
My point was that in all editions, Chaos has been the best basher, That in itself is not a broken environment.

Dode said:

LRB 4 FUMBBL was the same as far as Chaos is concerned. Orcs and Dwarves have been replaced by Nurgle and CDs.

Heh, I didn't see that one coming.
Chaos, Orcs, Khemri (+ Dwarfs and CDs) do sit on a rather large portion of the games.
Interestingly, I think it supports my hypothesis!

But before I go on, I hope we can agree that it is a rather mundane observation that being the best at something in the game isn't a game-breaker - as long as best isn't all that good. Right?
It's all about finding the breaking point.
And in that respect, I find it interesting that the other 4 teams in the top for are non-mutation teams with AV9 players at the core.
They must be viable even against chaos in LRB4 then!
Now - for a second there I got pure LRB4 confused with CRP with LRB4 PiOn.
The stats for POMB are, like I said, pretty much the same.
But MPOMB (POMB + 1 mutation) sure isn't!

So, remember, my baseline hypothesis is that the CRP damage level against AV7 (and this includes claw victims) is so high that it has a profound impact on the meta-game. That damage level is 58,5% to KO+, and 26,8% to straight cas!

Interestingly, if you take real LRB4 MPOMB to an AV7 target, you get a damage rate of 59,7% and 34,4%!!! Yikes. A little higher for KO+ - a lot higher for CAS! No wonder than that the squishier teams couldn't keep up. (Yeah I know that one M required 1 doubles roll, but one isn't hard to come by on a team full of hitters). Heck, things could get even worse if some lucky monster made it to Claw, Fang, PiOn.
(So - to all ye of little faith, CRP actually gave the squishies a break. Just a small one. )

On the other hand the damage level for real LRB4 MPOMB against an AV9 target is 38,5% to KO+, and 18,3% to straight cas.
And that was very obviously tolerable - as evidenced by those high AV teams in the top 5 - So a damage level along those lines seems like a reasonable place to start.
With AVRR PiOn we get something a bit higher - 44.2% and 20,3% - but nothing like CRP or the LRB4 MPOMB.
I think that's a pretty good place to start.
And as evidenced by the top teams in LRB4-FUMBBL, I think this is a damage level that will allow other teams than just Chaos to prosper.

Cheers
Martin

Oh - PS to Garion:

I like plasmoids Change because it would probably do away with po altogether except on the odd player.

Hehe, I think you overestimate the kindness of your fellow man - or is it the deterrent that was (old) DP

[DoubleSkulls]

I'm not really sure what your objective is for weakening bash and how you'd measure success, care to clarify it?

BTW I'd definitely count CDs as a "claw" team and I don't think your LRB4 numbers add up. Shouldn't it be the same as for your proposal?

[DoubleSkulls]

The problem with limiting them in this way is that you don't actually talk about the potential of the combo. If people choose not to use the full potential then that is up to them, but the potential is there nonetheless. If we're talking about how powerful a combo is against an AV then we should consider the full potential of it.

Agreed we need to ensure we do the maths both ways because assuming behaviour is a very bad idea when trying to work out if the skill combo is too powerful or not. We'd need to look at the most lethal scenario, see if we think that's acceptable, and then look at expected behaviour too. Its worth noting that "PO as Av reroll" was the rule in LRB4 and from my recollection it was rarely even taken. Fouling was a lot worse then, but I think a lot of coaches will not accept the risk of going prone for a 10/36 chance of breaking armour. Being stood up ready to hit the victim next turn can be quite advantageous.

With a general reduction in the lethality of teams we may also see small move away from emphasising the importance of maximising return on each blitz. If teams are less able to win by removing the opposition team, then positioning and game play become more important factors for winning - leading to some coaches recognising the importance of staying on their feet.

[plasmoid]

Hi DS,

I'm not really sure what your objective is for weakening bash and how you'd measure success, care to clarify it?

Heh, well, I'd never be able to do the large scale testing to ever properly measure objective accomplishment, write a report or get the accountants involved. I do have an idea for upping the scale a bit. But I'd never be able to produce stats that couldn't be attacked for a million different things.

My idea is simply to make Big Bash (which I suppose cover both HighAV Bash and ClawBash) less of a dominant factor in high TV play - as part of my main goal of making team selection and viable tactics a bit more diverse. I suppose this would eventually be measured by how many other teams than big bash were doing well in long term league play. BTW I think the numbers can be a bit misleading - if we look at just HighTV play, we may be forgetting that some teams more easily than other attain HighTV, while others, even in long term play, are constantly at a lower TV, because of cheap players or constant MNGs. I mean: A team can be both developed and prospering without hitting TV 220.

The way I'm trying to do this by rules are:
Not give away wads of cash on concessions, make SE tighter (to get the High AV bashers away from TV250, where they will be overdogs and hence by definition more likely to win), Edit: use the Bank to prevent those team from maintaining high TV - and most importantly limit the ammount of sheer damage they can do to everyone else with the bash combo.
Also, with the roster tweaks, I'm hoping to make some of the other teams more viable, further diversifying the field in league play.

BTW I'd definitely count CDs as a "claw" team

I would too in CRP. But not in LRB4 (unless my memory is off...?)

and I don't think your LRB4 numbers add up.Shouldn't it be the same as for your proposal?

For straight POMB yes. But not for MPOMB.
In LRB4, you had PiOn (AVRR), Mighty Blow, and Claw (+2 to armor) or Fang (+2 to injury) - heck, potentially both.
PiOn, Mighty Blow, Claw (+2) against an orc, or PiOn, MB, Fang against an AV7 player is pretty spectacular, as witnessed by the stats.
I think I got them right, even if by hand. When RR can only be used on one roll, and each modifier can only apply to one roll, things get a lot simpler

Cheers
Martin

[dode74]

BTW I think the numbers can be a bit misleading - if we look at just HighTV play, we may be forgetting that some teams more easily than other attain HighTV, while others, even in long term play, are constantly at a lower TV, because of cheap players or constant MNGs. I mean: A team can be both developed and prospering without hitting TV 220.

Completely agree with this, which is why I have long advocated both matching in MM by games played, and assessing long term balance by the same criteria.

As an aside, I think that limiting SE plus the bank will do a pretty good job of reducing the amount of damage which can be done before we even look at the skills. I suspect that the inability to reach and maintain the TV required to keep 3-4 CPOMB plus support (guard, ball handlers etc) will drastically cut attrition among other teams. With that in mind have you looked at the numbers for merely not stacking PO and MB (i.e. the PO RR does not have the +1 from MB)?

[garion]

Its worth noting that "PO as Av reroll" was the rule in LRB4 and from my recollection it was rarely even taken. Fouling was a lot worse then, but I think a lot of coaches will not accept the risk of going prone for a 10/36 chance of breaking armour. Being stood up ready to hit the victim next turn can be quite advantageous.

With a general reduction in the lethality of teams we may also see small move away from emphasising the importance of maximising return on each blitz. If teams are less able to win by removing the opposition team, then positioning and game play become more important factors for winning - leading to some coaches recognising the importance of staying on their feet.

+1 but this is a good thing imo. Positional play over outright war of attrition is one of the things that I liked most about LRB4 over CRP. A move back in this direction can only be a good thing surely.

[DoubleSkulls]

My idea is simply to make Big Bash (which I suppose cover both HighAV Bash and ClawBash) less of a dominant factor in high TV play - as part of my main goal of making team selection and viable tactics a bit more diverse. I suppose this would eventually be measured by how many other teams than big bash were doing well in long term league play. BTW I think the numbers can be a bit misleading - if we look at just HighTV play, we may be forgetting that some teams more easily than other attain HighTV, while others, even in long term play, are constantly at a lower TV, because of cheap players or constant MNGs. I mean: A team can be both developed and prospering without hitting TV 220.

So the thread around increasing diversity in perpetual leagues applies? Given that out of the 8 most popular races on FUMBBL Black Box 6 are claw teams I think there is a clear indication that Claw is a problem child with regards to the balance of races at higher TV. So not addressing that directly feels like an omission to me.

Nor is there any evidence that Av9 teams are too good a higher TVs. Both Orcs and Dwarves are miserably low tier 1 over 2000, and although Dwarves are above average out of the box, that quickly drops off over 1500.

[Darkson]

Wasn't RSC (Fangs) removed from LRB4?

[garion]

Wasn't RSC (Fangs) removed from LRB4?

nope, Lrb4 had RSC, it was a Physical Trait. +2 to injury and couldn't stack with MB.