Another day with Claw, sad...

@jrco said in Another day with Claw, sad...:

I just say that I can't believe it is black and white, I believe It is gray and that there are numerous situation where the lowest TV team is not at disadvantage baring inducements.

No doubt if the other team has maxed out its re-rolls and cheerleaders and has 16 players each with a totally random selection of skills then underdog teams coached by anyone with a clue will still beat it... but overdog teams coached by someone with a clue will likely beat it even more.

@jrco said in Another day with Claw, sad...:

I gave you specific example (ie : Vampire for example) but there are other. You choose to ignore them or explain data to prove me wrong.

Understand that people don't need to prove your meandering feelings wrong - you need to prove them right. That's especially true when you're declaring something contrary to the established norm.

Now, that said, here's the regression line for Vampire win rates based on TV advantage across the entire time CRP was used on FUMBBL:

Vampire Win Rate By TV Difference

Shockingly enough, it's not a downward slope toward 0... it's the usual "things get better for us as our TV advantage increases" pattern.

@jrco said in Another day with Claw, sad...:

I do not say it is the majority of situation, I just maintain it is not insignifiant either.

Then prove it with data. Until you do that what you're basing it on is feeling, and that's stupid.

@jrco said in Another day with Claw, sad...:

ie : Are you absolutely sure :

a 1250 Chaos team is so much better than a 1100 elves or Skavens team with a wizard ?
a 2250 vampire is better and win in most case against a 2100 Chaos, 2100 chaos dwarves,2100 Necris o or a 2000 Skavens ?

Those aren't questions about whether TV advantage is better or worse, those are questions about whether the roster is better or worse than another roster at different TV levels. The real questions are "whether the lower TV team wins more than higher TV teams of the same roster in that situation".

As for all these ultra-specific questions: I know how this game (not BB) works... you're going to want to subdivide things ad nauseum in order to forward a lame god-of-the-gaps argument, culminating in "but what about when vampires play wood elves on the second tuesday when both coaches are in china?" or some such crap, looking for some combination where you can say "well, that proves I'm right" solely on dint of there not being enough data to do serious analysis at such a minute level.

@jrco said in Another day with Claw, sad...:

Your trying to make me look like a fool, is not just unfair, it make me believe you have data but have not done a deep analysis of them. I don't have access to your data, yes, doesn't mean what I say based on experience is necerrally stupid.

No, you're making yourself look like a fool, and I don't mean the fact that you consistently use "your" in place of "you're" and can't spell "necessarily". If you think I've done the analysis wrong then its on you to do it right. If you don't know how to do the analysis then you're talking out your ass when you accuse me of doing it wrong since the only "evidence" you have is that it doesn't match what you decided was true based on anecdote. That alone makes you a fool.

@jrco said in Another day with Claw, sad...:

Your not trying to discuss but just make your absolute truth the truth. So you obviously do not want to understand that some nuances do exist.

"Nuance" means... when you've decided something is true but the data says you're wrong? There's a whole lot of "nuance" in the world, mostly forwarded by uneducated folks.

@voodoomike said in Another day with Claw, sad...:

@jrco said in Another day with Claw, sad...:

Your trying to make me look like a fool, is not just unfair, it make me believe you have data but have not done a deep analysis of them. I don't have access to your data, yes, doesn't mean what I say based on experience is necerrally stupid.

No, you're making yourself look like a fool, and I don't mean the fact that you consistently use "your" in place of "you're" and can't spell "necessarily".

"Your trying [...] is unfair" can be seen as correct 😛

@vulpes said in Another day with Claw, sad...:

"Your trying [...] is unfair" can be seen as correct 😛

Even if you believe that's what he was aiming for (which we know it wasn't), the following uses can't be seen that way:

"I read your message and your full of certitude and very often assert general truth as if it was the absolute truth , but here your wrong."

"Your not trying to discuss but just make your absolute truth the truth."

JRCO wants to try to criticize my analysis even though he doesn't know enough about the topic to repeat the process much less point out any errors... so he should be open to my criticizing of what he's got.. and thus far, all he's got is talk. I've got a sufficient grasp of english to criticize that proficiently 😉

May I critize/give some constructive feedback regarding the analysis/visualizations you are doing?

@voodoomike said in Another day with Claw, sad...:

Vampire Win Rate By TV Difference

Could you do a logistic regression instead? This way you would get a p-value for the variables you are interested it and for the people who are not so much into the raw numbers and prefer visualizations: Could you add the confidence intervalls (don't have to be the 95% one, maybe a lower one to avoid a plot full of lines) to the intervalls/points? This way we could at least see how reliable each point is.

@arne said in Another day with Claw, sad...:

Could you do a logistic regression instead? This way you would get a p-value for the variables you are interested it and for the people who are not so much into the raw numbers and prefer visualizations: Could you add the confidence intervalls (don't have to be the 95% one, maybe a lower one to avoid a plot full of lines) to the intervalls/points? This way we could at least see how reliable each point is.

Logistic regression is not appropriate for this topic - it is a two-state analysis which gives you the "odds" of one of two outcomes. Blood Bowl win rates are not that - they take a third state into direct consideration, treating draws as half a win. Under logistic regression draws will be treated as either a full win or a full loss, nothing in-between.

Likewise, since we're talking about the win rate trend across the spectrum of TV differences, the CI of individual points is irrelevant - if we care about the CI, it's for the regression line. The line is based on weighting each point according to the number of matches at that difference level, and I'm only displaying points that have 3 or more games present. If we want to look at the line's CI, it'd be better to shift from quadratic regression to simple linear regression, as the CI on quadratic (and, really, the line itself a lot of the time) is going to imply an S shape (because all quadratic lines are) which some folks will take as implying downward or upward trends reverse... even if they realistically do not (even on the graph I posted the quadratic line vaguely shows a higher win rate at around -700 TV, which is just an artefact of quadratic curves, not actually indicative of vampire teams suddenly getting better when they're down by 700).

I think it's best to keep things simple and to the point when using graphs to explain trends to non-data people, personally.

EDIT: I meant cubic, not quadratic.

last edited by VoodooMike

I had a realisation.
Remember the times? When Blood Bowl 2 released and everybody was like "Chaos and Claw is to strong".

"There aren't all teams released yet." they said.
"The Undead Teams are a counter to them" they said.
"The Meta will settle, when all Teams are released" they said.

HAHAHAHA.

Freaking old game and it's archaic ideas

@spiked-wall-man said in Another day with Claw, sad...:

"There aren't all teams released yet." they said.
"The Undead Teams are a counter to them" they said.
"The Meta will settle, when all Teams are released" they said.

Actually, all "they" said was "no it's not". The rest of that was about demographics, and nobody ever said Chaos would stop being popular, just that other unreleased teams would take a bite out of their numbers (eg, Chaos Dwarf, Nurgle, etc).

CPOMB is what made me leave the game a few years back, only came back to play with a friend in our private league but that faded fast, tried to come back again recently but it is pointless. This skill (Claw) is sucking the fun out of the game completly. I am a firm beliver that CLAW is the reason that this game have gone down the dumpster as almost no one play it anymore.

People who say "Play AV7 makes claw useless!" must be smoking weird stuff becuase by doing that you are basicly giving every team free claw against you.
Claw removes all play options above TV 1500 unless you play agility teams and they start to suffer heavily at TV 1750 or so because they lack good skills to use after that. And if you like to play bash teams the Claws remove that option.

EDIT: MB and PO are totaly fine in games when there is no Claw. It is when you bring in Claw the MB + PO combo breaks everything. Bash teams dont have the option to dodge out and avoid being hit.

Aparantly i had already written in this thread, in October...

last edited by SuperGnu

@supergnu said in Another day with Claw, sad...:

this game have gone down the dumpster as almost no one play it anymore.

Except it hasn't. There are still over 200 matches a day played in Champ Ladder alone.

I don't play bashy but I like claw. Keeps dwarfs and orcs in check. Otherwise good luck against the spammed guard mb with little hope of removing them

@dode74 said in Another day with Claw, sad...:

@supergnu said in Another day with Claw, sad...:

this game have gone down the dumpster as almost no one play it anymore.

Except it hasn't. There are still over 200 matches a day played in Champ Ladder alone.

You and i have a very different idea about what is and what is not healthy and good.

When you play CoL you end up against the same person every time you search (during that time) IF you even find a player to play against, sometimes you can be spinning for over 30minutes before you find a player and it is almost always someone that is TV somewhere around 300-500 TV higher or lower than your self.

last edited by SuperGnu

@futon Oddly enough my bash teams without CLAW do fine against those teams.

@supergnu said in Another day with Claw, sad...:

You and i have a very different idea about what is and what is not healthy and good.

When you play CoL you end up against the same person every time you search (during that time) IF you even find a player to play against, sometimes you can be spinning for over 30minutes before you find a player and it is almost always someone that is TV somewhere around 300-500 TV higher or lower than your self.

Depends on what time of day you are playing, and that has always been the case. The fact is that it hasn't got any worse, and that was your claim.

Suppose it's like anything one or two on team not a problem...4-5 just puts you off.

@dode74 said in Another day with Claw, sad...:

@supergnu said in Another day with Claw, sad...:

You and i have a very different idea about what is and what is not healthy and good.

When you play CoL you end up against the same person every time you search (during that time) IF you even find a player to play against, sometimes you can be spinning for over 30minutes before you find a player and it is almost always someone that is TV somewhere around 300-500 TV higher or lower than your self.

Depends on what time of day you are playing, and that has always been the case. The fact is that it hasn't got any worse, and that was your claim.

Primetime in EU and in US.

You've played 28 matches this season in Open Ladder. Of those 28 3 have had a TV difference >=300TV up or down. Of those 28 matches you've once played the same coach twice when that coach conceded to you after 10 minutes and you then both span again. TV difference in those two matches were 40 and 10.

You and I have a very different idea of what:

you end up against the same person every time you search

and

it is almost always someone that is TV somewhere around 300-500 TV higher or lower than your self.

look like.

How dare you let facts get in the way of a rant.

Could deaths and injuries other than badly hurt be more restricted? Those ideas for abregating those results after the match seems plausible.

I personally like the idea of making claw reduce armour by one point (and perhaps make mighty blow only affect injuries)...makes a.v. 9 and the like still actually really valuable and valid throughout. Piling on is kind of a thing which I don't mind per-se. In combo with MB and claw it's killer stuff, but I've always liked the idea that it has a gamble element, putting the user on their ass and making them vulnerable in a way.

Do we need injuries beyond BH and MNG anyway? I can't say I'd mind, would anyone else? Does anyone need death and stat reducing injuries to be present to enjoy the game? Mebbe there's a case to be made but it does feel like agi teams with expensive players are a bit more up against it, especially with that 'any more than 150k saved gold counts against TV'. It does feel valid to say that the rules designed for a tabletop game should be open to development and changes to fit this environment, especially since we're on what, living rulebook version 7 now? Regular changes and tweaks are a consistent element of these rules and have been since it began.

last edited by Real Scotticus

@darkson said in Another day with Claw, sad...:

How dare you let facts get in the way of a rant.

I must have missed the facts, can you quote them for me please? (spewing numbers with no evidence is not facts)

last edited by SuperGnu

@dode74 said in Another day with Claw, sad...:

You've played 28 matches this season in Open Ladder. Of those 28 3 have had a TV difference >=300TV up or down. Of those 28 matches you've once played the same coach twice when that coach conceded to you after 10 minutes and you then both span again. TV difference in those two matches were 40 and 10.

You and I have a very different idea of what:

you end up against the same person every time you search

and

it is almost always someone that is TV somewhere around 300-500 TV higher or lower than your self.

look like.

Can you share the SS so i can look? I dont have all my temas left as i did a purge.

EDIT: And also i can not see the TV in my statistics. And i also dont run the game more than once anymore just because you just end up agaisnt the same person. After a game concede or full i just do something else. Because of experience.

last edited by SuperGnu

Looks like your connection to Focus Home Interactive - Official Forums was lost, please wait while we try to reconnect.