| Poll |
| Is CLAWPOMB really a problem? |
| Yes, absolutley |
|
55% |
[ 464 ] |
| No, Chaos Dwarfs Disagree |
|
20% |
[ 174 ] |
| Still Haven't Decided |
|
8% |
[ 75 ] |
| Pie! |
|
15% |
[ 127 ] |
|
| Total Votes : 840 |
|
Shakall
Joined: Feb 15, 2005
|
 Posted:
May 03, 2016 - 15:11 |
 
|
In chess all players carry autokill potential, that's kinda neat. |
|
|
thoralf
Joined: Mar 06, 2008
|
| Posted:
May 03, 2016 - 15:15 |
|
| dode74 wrote: | | thoralf - skill is a control variable indeed, but my point is that the same players playing the same races skew the data. |
This argument would apply to any dataset you choose to study, so using a smörgåsbord of data doesn't solve it.
That the players play the same race as yet to be shown.
Finding a correlation between skill and races choice might indeed show something related to race balance.
***
| dode74 wrote: | | I *have* included every game for every level by everyone, and the significance level I have used is 95CI. |
This smells like ritualistic significance testing more than anything.
A cursory look at one of koadah's link should be enough to see the problem.
Here's the CPOMB/Non CPOMB line with unlimited TV:
112734 45453 23229 44052 50.62 2.95 1.83
Here's the same line with 1300 min TV:
72754 29808 15038 27908 51.31 3.38 2.02
The first numbers emphasized is the population, while the second numbers emphasized show the number of CAS by the CPOMB team.
You can see that the number of CAS starts to increase at 1300. At 1400, it's 3,52, and at 1500, it reaches 3,68. At 1600, it's 3,85. The number of received CAS remains about the same at just about every level. *Any* CPOMB team almost doubles the attrition rate of its opponent when it reaches 1600-1700, and increases its own attrition rate by 50%.
This behavior has an obvious explanation.
If this behavior can't be captured by looking at 112734 games, then so much the worse for a smörgåsbord approach to the data. |
|
|
BillBrasky
Joined: Feb 15, 2005
|
| Posted:
May 03, 2016 - 15:40 |
|
That article made my eyes cross.
I guess that was the point. |
|
|
JellyBelly
Joined: Jul 08, 2009
|
| Posted:
May 03, 2016 - 15:43 |
|
| dode74 wrote: | Yes, it's a subjective term - "lots" can mean any number you like, so fair comment. I was working from "it's been around for years and people still play it", but again that is dwarfed by chess. Let's not use that, then.
I ask again, though: how are you measuring enjoyment? You're the one who thinks it needs to be involved in this, after all. |
Incidentally, while we're talking about player numbers, I don't know if it's been mentioned already somewhere in this mammoth thread, but if you look at the historical data for 'games played on FUMBBL', which is available here:
https://fumbbl.com/p/stats
(under the 'games per quarter tab')
there was a huge (almost 50%) drop in the number of games being played during 2009/early 2010, which roughly corresponds to the introduction of the FFB client and LRB5/CRP. In fact, I recall that at the time many coaches were deeply unhappy with the new ruleset and explicitly said they were leaving because of it (in fact, I was one of them - I only recently came back 3-4 months ago). Just some food for thought ..
I will answer your question about gauging player enjoyment, however I actually need to do some work right now, so it might take me a couple of hours. |
_________________
"Opinions are like arseholes, everybody's got them and they all stink." - The protagonist, Fallout 2
"Go for the eyes, Boo! Go for the eyes!!"  |
|
dode74
Joined: Aug 14, 2009
|
| Posted:
May 03, 2016 - 15:54 |
|
thoralf - The tournament data has a very small dataset. It's not unreasonable to say that when you are looking at only a few sets of data in which a race is played by only a few players then the player skill will have a huge effect.
You're confusing a search for something with a comparison with a stated goal. The stated goal is a lifetime win%, which means the increase as TV increases isn't relevant if the lifetime data is within the bounds set.
| Quote: | | *Any* CPOMB team almost doubles the attrition rate of its opponent when it reaches 1600-1700, and increases its own attrition rate by 50%. |
Again, so what, beyond "I don't like it"? That the net cas rate increases as Chaos gets more damage skills is neither unrecognised nor unsurprising. It's whether the effect of that puts the team's lifetime win% out of the bracket which matters. |
|
|
koadah
Joined: Mar 30, 2005
|
| Posted:
May 03, 2016 - 15:55 |
|
| dode74 wrote: | | koadah - I think you're rather missing my point. There is a difference between needing to change the rules and wanting to change the rules. My point is that there is no need to change the rules: they are not objectively broken. If you want to, and are able to, apply house rules to play the way you want to then more power to you. |
Hence my comment "They should remain unchanged until the end of time".
If no one wanted to change the rules then they wouldn't be changed. No matter what your numbers said. 
But no. I'm not bothered which rules they use on TT or on Cyanide. If anything I probably have a vested interest in the 'official rules' staying the same so that they don't move too far from the rules that I like.
So, we're stuck with sub-optimal rules because everyone fears change in case the change happens to be worse.
I guess there is no real hope of getting better then. |
_________________
O[L]C 2016 Swiss! - April ---- All Star Bowl - Teams of Stars - 2 more teams needed |
|
dode74
Joined: Aug 14, 2009
|
| Posted:
May 03, 2016 - 15:58 |
|
| JellyBelly wrote: | | there was a huge (almost 50%) drop in the number of games being played during 2009/early 2010, which roughly corresponds to the introduction of the FFB client and LRB5/CRP. |
It also corresponds with the release of Cyanide BB, to which a lot of players gravitated.
The FFB client released in Jan/Feb 11, btw. The decline started a year or more before that (Apr 09 or so).
We can speculate about the "real" cause all you like, but the fact is there were doubtless multiple factors, and FUMBBL no longer being the only place to play BB online was without doubt one of them.
A question for you regarding "enjoyment" which might save you a little work providing your means of measuring it: if someone doesn't enjoy a game does that make it objectively broken? |
|
|
thoralf
Joined: Mar 06, 2008
|
| Posted:
May 03, 2016 - 16:07 |
|
| JellyBelly wrote: | | there was a huge (almost 50%) drop in the number of games being played during 2009/early 2010, which roughly corresponds to the introduction of the FFB client and LRB5/CRP. In fact, I recall that at the time many coaches were deeply unhappy with the new ruleset and explicitly said they were leaving because of it (in fact, I was one of them - I only recently came back 3-4 months ago). |
This has been discussed a few pages ago. |
|
|
dode74
Joined: Aug 14, 2009
|
| Posted:
May 03, 2016 - 16:08 |
|
koadah - actually they will change if the people with the remit to change them want them changed. I would also argue it's their duty to themselves to change it if they fail to meet their design goals, i.e. the game is objectively broken.
That's kind of the point: it's their game to change as they see fit, to measure balance with as they see fit. Our choices are to play the game, to house rule it, or to not play it. |
|
|
Wreckage
Joined: Aug 15, 2004
|
| Posted:
May 03, 2016 - 16:21 |
|
Hm this is something I wanted to discuss way earlier in another thread but since we are here, how many players do you think Dode would CPOMB have to be able to remove on average per game for us to be able to call it broken?
I mean clearly player removal is a strong effect, right? |
|
|
the_Sage
Joined: Jan 13, 2011
|
| Posted:
May 03, 2016 - 16:27 |
|
| Wreckage wrote: | Hm this is something I wanted to discuss way earlier in another thread but since we are here, how many players do you think Dode would CPOMB have to be able to remove on average per game for us to be able to call it broken?
I mean clearly player removal is a strong effect, right? |
Enough to win more than they should, I'd think?
My problem isn't that it's broken good, it's that it's dumb. Clawpomb spam makes good coaches win 60% instead of 70%, and bad coaches win 55% instead of 40%. |
_________________
Content: Twitch / Youtube ; Updates: Facebook / Twitter
(because big banners are compensating) |
|
Nextflux
Joined: Jan 22, 2008
|
| Posted:
May 03, 2016 - 16:32 |
|
Nice to see that discussion is moved to this thread, so no self-restraints needed here, now I can at least answer to insults and other if they come my way again.
Im not finished with the poll discussion quite yet, dode dismissed the poll result in this thread calling it "biased" better word might be insignificant though, by calling it biased one might misunderstand that the group in question: "people in fummbl" can't be asked about this question, because the are not representative enough, ergo he thinks.. sorry .. he KNOWS (100%) that they cannot be asked.
because they answer rather randomly when they answer.
I on the other hand, think the group in question is perfect to answer a question about CPOMB, one reason being that they know the question being asked, if you asked a random guy at a random street, most likely he is unable to answer, because he doesn't understand what CPOMB means.
I find this information useful to a certain extent, dode does not.
Dode reports that it has no use, and starts referring to various charts from all over the world, multiple forums etc.
how strange! I thought we were discussing (in that other thread) new Ideas about how to change CPOMB. Dode doesn't want that discussion though, because he hasn't found any proof that CPOMB is broken.
My reply to that is: why does any research need to show that it is broken in order to change it or even talk about a change?
back to this poll again, now I know its not a poll with all the needed methology, but I still think it has value, but more with a qualitiative approach than dode's endless charts where can see yourself blind in all the numbers.
I was thinking this poll makes sense when you are making new designs and need new ideas, a new theory.
I was looking for new ideas, and this poll was just a part of it, it indicates that people on fummbl seem to have a problem with CPOMB, a majority.
Now it doesn't matter if it is a majority or not, not to me, and not much to discuss new ideas, but dode dismissed it, calling people biased? Thats the main thing I disagree with, that and that all-knowing dode doesn't see the value of discussing possible solution to a possible problem, but just dismisses everything and starts referring to charts.
To me thats just clogging the discussion, making everyone quarrel about validity of research when we should be discussing possible solutions.
Now I guess dode don't want let this go easily so I am ready to answer about validity, polls etc if needed.
There can actually be other was to do things than dode's rigid quantitative know-how. |
Last edited by Nextflux on %b %03, %2016 - %16:%May; edited 1 time in total |
|
thoralf
Joined: Mar 06, 2008
|
| Posted:
May 03, 2016 - 16:33 |
|
| dode74 wrote: | | thoralf - The tournament data has a very small dataset. It's not unreasonable to say that when you are looking at only a few sets of data in which a race is played by only a few players then the player skill will have a huge effect. |
So much the better - it shows where the optimized strategies lead.
You might as well argue that because the best Volleyball players are the ones who benefit the most from only getting points on the serve, the rules should never have been changed.
***
| dode74 wrote: | | You're confusing a search for something with [...] a stated goal. The stated goal is a lifetime win%, which means the increase as TV increases isn't relevant if the lifetime data is within the bounds set. |
One does not simply search for a "stated goal," whatever that means, for the pure fun of studying a population. The number of win% should represent something. You just can't hide your interpretation under the rug.
Here's a relevant problem:
| Quote: | | It is my firm belief that the ever rising average percentage of draws in the whereabouts of currently approximately between 80 and 85 per cent in higher and top level play will have a negative impact on the overall appeal of correspondence chess because the concept of competition is being eroded. Commitment and willingness to perform are being rendered more and more futile and at least appear ever less worth the while if in the end, all the effort results in a draw between two opponents who are electronically armed to the teeth. What catches the eye is the fact that even in big tournaments with 15 or 17 players, more and more players are to be found who draw all or nearly all of their games while the seemingly unattainable tournament victory would have required only one or two wins against weaker or indisposed opponents. Everybody can imagine where this trend will lead us if it continues unabated. |
There's no need to get some lifetime win% of the overall ICCF database to see that there's a problem at the top, which in turn affects the base.
***
| Quote: | | That the net cas rate increases as Chaos gets more damage skills is neither unrecognised nor unsurprising. It's whether the effect of that puts the team's lifetime win% out of the bracket which matters. |
Who made you King to decide what matters and what doesn't, Dode?
That you then suggest we study a dataset where the effect of CPOMB gets dilluted shows how "objective" this whole data talk is. |
|
|
BillBrasky
Joined: Feb 15, 2005
|
| Posted:
May 03, 2016 - 16:38 |
|
I think most of you enjoy talking about blood bowl more than playing.
Activate! |
|
|
koadah
Joined: Mar 30, 2005
|
| Posted:
May 03, 2016 - 16:47 |
|
| Wreckage wrote: | Hm this is something I wanted to discuss way earlier in another thread but since we are here, how many players do you think Dode would CPOMB have to be able to remove on average per game for us to be able to call it broken?
I mean clearly player removal is a strong effect, right? |
As far as I can tell Dode only really cares about the win/loss.
| BillBrasky wrote: | I think most of you enjoy talking about blood bowl more than playing.
Activate! |
Exactly. Christer didn't go for the rule changes so activating doesn't seem like that much fun. |
_________________
O[L]C 2016 Swiss! - April ---- All Star Bowl - Teams of Stars - 2 more teams needed |
|
|
|
| |
Roster Tiers
Search
