Does Player Attrition need to be reviewed?

Share your ideas and Suggestions about Blood Bowl 2.
angus1903
Posts: 42
Joined: 18 August 2011, 21:48

Re: Does Player Attrition need to be reviewed?

Postby angus1903 » 05 January 2014, 19:02

The problem is that attrition was not designed to work independently, if you remove this you will also need to review player development, finances and inducements.

What you are suggesting just changes it from an environment that you believe to favour bash (I don't believe this is the case) to one that will undoubtedly favour agile teams as they will develop faster. I would imagine Wood Elf teams cutting Wardancers who don't roll +1 st getting cut after the 1st 1 or 2 skills.

I think you also need to consider that agile teams get more benefits out of inducements than bash so it isn't necessary in their interests to keep developing but this is a limit with TV MM not the rules.

User avatar
VoodooMike
Posts: 1614
Joined: 14 July 2009, 07:44
Location: Calgary, Alberta
Contact:

Re: Does Player Attrition need to be reviewed?

Postby VoodooMike » 05 January 2014, 21:24

The problem is that attrition was not designed to work independently, if you remove this you will also need to review player development, finances and inducements.
You'll need to do more than simply declare it to be so. SPP gain is not profoundly different across the rosters, nor is the rate at which gold is accumulated. The major difference has always been the frequency and cost of player replacement, which is higher in both cases for agility teams. At worst, gold stops being a serious concern for anybody in a non-attrition environment, being useful only to buy inducements which, under the current system, will not give you a TV advantage at the match level. Sounds like things would be balanced just fine.
What you are suggesting just changes it from an environment that you believe to favour bash (I don't believe this is the case) to one that will undoubtedly favour agile teams as they will develop faster. I would imagine Wood Elf teams cutting Wardancers who don't roll +1 st getting cut after the 1st 1 or 2 skills.
The difference between my belief and yours is that mine is supported by the data. As I said, SPP gain is not significantly different across the range of rosters except by tier, so the claim that agility teams develop faster is more or less unfounded. As for the wood elf team alarmism... do keep in mind that the median number of games played by any team in these environments is currently FIVE. Most teams are being thrown away long before they get a chance to engage in minmaxing of the sort you're worried about... and on top of that I'd ask why it matters if people want to engage in that sort of exceedingly slow minmax development? If you face a profoundly well-tuned team and it beats you, under a non-attrition environment you can get on with your life unlike the current environments where those finely tuned teams are all bash and they're designed to permanently cripple your team.

Most people don't mind losing a game, and that's the main danger when facing a well-developed agility team. What people mind is losing their team, and that's what they're presently dealing with when facing well-developed bash teams. I doubt we'd see anything approaching the level of general discontent that we see now if the worst you ever faced was a lost match.
I think you also need to consider that agile teams get more benefits out of inducements than bash so it isn't necessary in their interests to keep developing but this is a limit with TV MM not the rules.
Again, how do you figure? Is your current claim that agility teams actually do better when they're at a TV disadvantage now? Again, not to keep slapping you in the face with the data, but... TV disadvantage doesn't seem to favour any of the rosters - the greater the TV difference, the more likely the underdog is to lose, for all rosters.
Friendly Reminder: Correlation does not equal Causation - tattoo it on the inside of your eyelids if it'll help.

angus1903
Posts: 42
Joined: 18 August 2011, 21:48

Re: Does Player Attrition need to be reviewed?

Postby angus1903 » 06 January 2014, 22:57

Are you suggesting that all the non match factors were developed independently and slung together in the hope that they would work?

It might be that just removing attrition will have no affect but it would be wrong to not consider the effect on the other factors.
The difference between my belief and yours is that mine is supported by the data. As I said, SPP gain is not significantly different across the range of rosters except by tier, so the claim that agility teams develop faster is more or less unfounded.
You know as well as I do that team development is not just about how quickly SPP can be gained as a team. What agile teams have the ability to do is skill up particular players where as low agile players are dependent largely on the unpredictable nature of Cas & MVPs.

In saying this I would be interested to see your data on this, apologies if I missed it in this thread.
As for the wood elf team alarmism... do keep in mind that the median number of games played by any team in these environments is currently FIVE.
As somebody who wants all arguments backed up with data it seems odd to throw in a stat with no context.

What are "these environments"?
Does it include current and historic teams?

Not that this fact is that relevant because the same argument could be used to say there is no issue with killer teams as they don't play enough matches to develop either.
Again, how do you figure? Is your current claim that agility teams actually do better when they're at a TV disadvantage now? Again, not to keep slapping you in the face with the data, but... TV disadvantage doesn't seem to favour any of the rosters - the greater the TV difference, the more likely the underdog is to lose, for all rosters.
Not saying that agility teams are more likely to win as an underdog but in my opinion the inducements are generally better suited to them, particularly with the missing star players.

User avatar
VoodooMike
Posts: 1614
Joined: 14 July 2009, 07:44
Location: Calgary, Alberta
Contact:

Re: Does Player Attrition need to be reviewed?

Postby VoodooMike » 07 January 2014, 02:29

Are you suggesting that all the non match factors were developed independently and slung together in the hope that they would work?
Based on the outcomes in perpetual play I'd say that's exactly what happened, yes. Whatever the intention was, the actual effect has not been successful in perpetual play environments, especially matchmaking environments.
You know as well as I do that team development is not just about how quickly SPP can be gained as a team. What agile teams have the ability to do is skill up particular players where as low agile players are dependent largely on the unpredictable nature of Cas & MVPs.
In the curreny perpetual play matchmaking environments you typically see the bash teams with a few well-developed players that are specifically made to be casualty-causing machines, which also makes them the SPP magnets. Casualties are not all that unpredictable, but what IS predictable is which agility player will be soaking the casualties if the opposing team has anything to say about it - the well-developed ones. How focused player development is has little to do with a team being bash, agility, or hybrid - it has to do with the coach's play style.
In saying this I would be interested to see your data on this, apologies if I missed it in this thread.
You can hunt down dode's goofy graphs on the SPP gain rate, and the subsequent discussion (on these forums). Alternately you can take the datasets and run the numbers yourself. There's no data on how "focused" the SPPs are on specific players, if that's what you're looking for, but you can check any of the teams with a high number of games played... you'll see the same sort of SPP distribution across the team roster regardless of the team type.
As somebody who wants all arguments backed up with data it seems odd to throw in a stat with no context.
It has plenty of context. You're saying it'd result in agility teams being refined across dozens-to-hundreds of games, firing any player without a very specific set of skillup rolls and such... I'm pointing out that most teams play 5 games or less, presently, so worrying about the teams that play 100+ games is silly. If a no-attrition environment encouraged a large number of people to stick with a single team for 100+ games, I'd call that a win for the environment.
Not that this fact is that relevant because the same argument could be used to say there is no issue with killer teams as they don't play enough matches to develop either.
Only if you ignore the data on which rosters are involved in matches at various TV levels.
Not saying that agility teams are more likely to win as an underdog but in my opinion the inducements are generally better suited to them, particularly with the missing star players.
In my opinion vanilla is the best flavour of ice cream.
Friendly Reminder: Correlation does not equal Causation - tattoo it on the inside of your eyelids if it'll help.

User avatar
dode74
Posts: 7041
Joined: 11 December 2008, 11:18
Location: Nr. Reading, UK
Contact:

Re: Does Player Attrition need to be reviewed?

Postby dode74 » 07 January 2014, 07:09

There's no data on how "focused" the SPPs are on specific players
...
you'll see the same sort of SPP distribution across the team roster regardless of the team type.
No data, but you'll see it?
If a no-attrition environment encouraged a large number of people to stick with a single team for 100+ games, I'd call that a win for the environment.
Interesting measure of "success". Not one I would choose, but there you go.
Image

User avatar
Koadah
Posts: 1211
Joined: 08 April 2009, 16:17
Contact:

Re: Does Player Attrition need to be reviewed?

Postby Koadah » 07 January 2014, 10:26

There's no data on how "focused" the SPPs are on specific players
...
you'll see the same sort of SPP distribution across the team roster regardless of the team type.
No data, but you'll see it?
There is loads of of data. It is just that no one can be arsed to collect it. ;)
CaRBB

User avatar
VoodooMike
Posts: 1614
Joined: 14 July 2009, 07:44
Location: Calgary, Alberta
Contact:

Re: Does Player Attrition need to be reviewed?

Postby VoodooMike » 07 January 2014, 11:28

No data, but you'll see it?
I doubt you've collected a dataset related to how many times the sun has risen at the start of the day, but you'll see it tomorrow. It's anecdotal - which isn't useful for making objective decisions, but this isn't about that: it's about helping a specific person find the truth during a discussion. Running through the best-developed bash teams and best-developed agility teams will give one at least a rudimentary idea of how SPPs are being distributed across the team, and having done that, I'm pretty confident the idea that "agility focuses on a small number of players while bash does not" will be abandoned by whomever believes it currently.
Interesting measure of "success". Not one I would choose, but there you go.
Of course you wouldn't - as you've stated in the past you don't have any idea for a measure of success, at least none other than "what dode74 wants", which you'll have to admit is pretty subjective. I seem to recall you rejected "more people choosing to play and to stay" as a metric too. As I said in the past... when you think of a metric, get back to me ;)

As for whether the off-handed measure you're criticizing is worthwhile... well... it would seem strange for someone to continue playing a team, in an environment, when they weren't enjoying doing so - so an increase in the median age of teams would suggest the people playing in the environment are having more fun doing so than they did before. Of course, we'd need to look at the before-and-after total population as well to give the change in median some perspective.
There is loads of of data. It is just that no one can be arsed to collect it. ;)
Very true. No small part of that, however, is the level of difficulty (and slog) involved in obtaining the data from the sources that do make it available.
Friendly Reminder: Correlation does not equal Causation - tattoo it on the inside of your eyelids if it'll help.

User avatar
dode74
Posts: 7041
Joined: 11 December 2008, 11:18
Location: Nr. Reading, UK
Contact:

Re: Does Player Attrition need to be reviewed?

Postby dode74 » 07 January 2014, 20:03

Running through the best-developed bash teams and best-developed agility teams will give one at least a rudimentary idea of how SPPs are being distributed across the team,
So eyeballing, right?
Simply looking at "best developed" to see where the SPP lie is pretty silly too, imo. What might be a better measure would be how long it takes a developed team to recover to a similar TV after a game where it took numerous casualties. The point being made was that the agility teams, through their ability to focus SPP more effectively on individual players, are better able to recover (should they wish to). The converse is that bash teams are less likely to need to recover.
I'm pretty confident the idea that "agility focuses on a small number of players while bash does not" will be abandoned by whomever believes it currently.
Nobody said that. They said agility can focus SPP where desired much more easily.
an increase in the median age of teams would suggest the people playing in the environment are having more fun doing so than they did before
Not really. It would just mean that the teams were lasting longer due to the lower attrition, merely indicating that measures to reduce attrition have worked. The "overall games played" is a far better measure than this one, and even that is poor, imo. But then you don't think actual opinions have anything to do with how good someone thinks the game is...
Image

User avatar
VoodooMike
Posts: 1614
Joined: 14 July 2009, 07:44
Location: Calgary, Alberta
Contact:

Re: Does Player Attrition need to be reviewed?

Postby VoodooMike » 08 January 2014, 14:06

So eyeballing, right?
In this case, yes - angus1903 has a theory that there is a marked difference between bash and agility teams in terms of development, specifically that agility teams focus their development on individual players and bash teams do not. While there is no large dataset that can tell us either way, it seems reasonable to say that such a difference would be apparent in higher TV teams. I said "go look and see if you can see that". At the end of the day we don't have the data to say more conclusively either way, but then again the idea that bash and agility teams develop the same would be the null hypothesis so.... happy hunting.
Simply looking at "best developed" to see where the SPP lie is pretty silly too, imo. What might be a better measure would be how long it takes a developed team to recover to a similar TV after a game where it took numerous casualties. The point being made was that the agility teams, through their ability to focus SPP more effectively on individual players, are better able to recover (should they wish to). The converse is that bash teams are less likely to need to recover.
Yes, and you put forward that theory a long time ago, and in case you've forgotten, the theory did not stand up to analysis, despite all your purdy little graphs with misleading axes. The rate at which agility teams gain SPP is not significantly higher than that of bash teams - certainly not when compared with the rate at which they receive casualties or even deaths.
Nobody said that. They said agility can focus SPP where desired much more easily.
Is the moon full again? Your lycanthropy (were-weasel) is running amok! Any team can focus their SPP where they desire, and they seem quite inclined to do so; it takes a few skills to turn an agility player into a focused scoring machine... it takes a few skills to turn a bash player into a focused CAS machine. Once a player hits critical mass in terms of skills needed, the coach can focus on using that player for its intended purpose, and almost any activity leads to SPP gain.
Not really. It would just mean that the teams were lasting longer due to the lower attrition, merely indicating that measures to reduce attrition have worked. The "overall games played" is a far better measure than this one, and even that is poor, imo. But then you don't think actual opinions have anything to do with how good someone thinks the game is...
You mean, those median 5 game teams have run out of "continues" and thus HAD to stop playing? When teams stop playing games its because the coach chooses to stop playing games with them. If the number related to whatever measure of central tendency we decide to use (I favour median) increases, it means that coaches are choosing to play more games with their teams.

Stop whining about the opinion thing, especially since you keep whining in the wrong direction. I don't say opinions are nothing - I say rote opinions are not a usable metric, so alone they not only can be ignored, they outright CANT be useful. Individual opinions are random words... collective opinions are something that can potentially be turned into a metric, but which face numerous confounds... and unless I'm mistaken, you haven't lifted a finger to create an opinion metric other than just blabbing your own opinion and expecting it to hold weight. What we can measure, and which is less subject to confounds, is what people actually do. We can assume that what people do is representative of their opinions, unless someone is holding a gun to their head.
Friendly Reminder: Correlation does not equal Causation - tattoo it on the inside of your eyelids if it'll help.

User avatar
dode74
Posts: 7041
Joined: 11 December 2008, 11:18
Location: Nr. Reading, UK
Contact:

Re: Does Player Attrition need to be reviewed?

Postby dode74 » 08 January 2014, 14:16

The rate at which agility teams gain SPP is not significantly higher than that of bash teams - certainly not when compared with the rate at which they receive casualties or even deaths.
Are you deliberately missing the point? Bash teams may well gain SPP at the same rate overall (I've not said otherwise), but the players on which they are gaining those SPP may not be the ones who they want to develop.
Not sure what you think was misleading about the axes, btw. Please feel free to elaborate when making such accusations.
Any team can focus their SPP where they desire, and they seem quite inclined to do so; it takes a few skills to turn an agility player into a focused scoring machine... it takes a few skills to turn a bash player into a focused CAS machine. Once a player hits critical mass in terms of skills needed, the coach can focus on using that player for its intended purpose, and almost any activity leads to SPP gain.
Again, you're missing the point. That aim of gaining SPP is to get the player to be the scoring machine or the cas machine. Getting those SPP is harder on an unskilled bash (or, more specifically, AG3) player than on an unskilled agility (AG4) player. Once they are at that level then you are far better off getting SPP on other, less-skilled players.
Image


Return to “Ideas and Suggestions”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests

cron