Does Player Attrition need to be reviewed?

Share your ideas and Suggestions about Blood Bowl 2.
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 » 09 January 2014, 13:14

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.
No, you're missing the point (as usual). Yes, unskilled bash players rely on a lucky hit to get CAS based SPP until they can improve their ability to get those CASs... but the same is true of unskilled agility players: they rely on lucky rolls to score those TDs until they have the added skills to make them better than their teammates at doing so.

In a team's early days there are a bunch of cookie-cutter players that just try to get any SPP they can - it doesn't really matter which one gets the SPP, since they really are all the same in terms of stats, be they bash or agility players. There's no point in focusing until someone lucks out, gets a level or two, and stands out from the pack, at which point both bash and agility coaches will use that player, when possible, to do their "thing", which will earn them SPP more quickly than their teammates. CAS SPP is less reliable than TD SPP due to additional dice rolls, but it also occurs much more frequently than TDs, and how likely a player is to be removed from the board moves in opposite directions as they become a more focused bash or agility player.

In later days of a team's life the chances of doing wonderful things with a freshly hired agility player are pretty low, so "focused" recovery is not all that likely.
Not sure what you think was misleading about the axes, btw. Please feel free to elaborate when making such accusations.
Awesome, are we pretending the entire thread on that topic didn't happen again? It's never boring watching reruns with you, dode!
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.
Am I missing the point that you have zero evidence for this key difference being the case in actual play? There are a million theories that make sense to the person putting them out there, but as I say, the idea that bash and agility have no significant development difference (other than player survival) remains the null hypothesis. Feel free to get back to me when you have more than smoke. Thanks!
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 » 09 January 2014, 14:14

This is when I start to wonder if you actually play. Cas and TDs are not the only way to get SPP. AG4 teams rely on early passes to get as many players as possible within 1MVP of a level-up, and continually farm passes for SPP. "Wonderful things" are not required to start a rookie replacement on their way in an AG4 team: a few passes are.
are we pretending the entire thread on that topic didn't happen again
Only the bit you're imagining...
Feel free to get back to me when you have more than smoke.
Did you not say just a few posts ago that anecdotal evidence is acceptable when "helping a specific person find the truth during a discussion"?

Ah well, you're playing your usual game of "Mike's opinion is infallible" and vehemently dismissing any argument which doesn't agree with it. I'll let you have your next rant for free (within limits) and not bother replying.
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 » 09 January 2014, 22:32

This is when I start to wonder if you actually play. Cas and TDs are not the only way to get SPP. AG4 teams rely on early passes to get as many players as possible within 1MVP of a level-up, and continually farm passes for SPP. "Wonderful things" are not required to start a rookie replacement on their way in an AG4 team: a few passes are.
Sorry, I do play the game, which is why I don't consider "farming" anything to be an integral part of it - whatever you're "playing" sounds pretty lame. No doubt this supposed major recovery mechanic that exists for agility teams will mean we see plenty of them at high TV, right? Oh wait, we don't see anything like that, do we?
Only the bit you're imagining...
I only imagined your crappy graphs that used a narrow range of SPP for the y axis to overemphasize the difference in SPP gain between rosters, despite the practical difference being trivial? I must have imagined the part where your argument that agility has fast recovery speed to compensate for their increased attrition utterly failed to explain what we see in MM environments, too. It was such a vivid dream... and you were there... and so was toto.. and you were a scarecrow... and you sang a song, though I can't quite remember how it went...
Did you not say just a few posts ago that anecdotal evidence is acceptable when "helping a specific person find the truth during a discussion"?
You seem to have skipped over the part where the opposing theory was what differed from the null hypothesis. You're trying to use weak anecdote to support the "there is a difference" theory, and that requires real evidence specifically because it is deviating from the null. As usual, your little brain fails to wrap itself around the idea that the burden of proof falls on the party/parties that suggest things are significantly different.
Ah well, you're playing your usual game of "Mike's opinion is infallible" and vehemently dismissing any argument which doesn't agree with it. I'll let you have your next rant for free (within limits) and not bother replying.
Actually, you're playing your usual game of derail the thread with endless bickering about some side topic. Which year was it when you shifted from being a forum moderator to a forum obviator again? Thanks so much for "letting" me speak, oh mighty ruler! WoOoooOooo....
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 » 09 January 2014, 23:28

I only imagined your crappy graphs that used a narrow range of SPP for the y axis to overemphasize the difference in SPP gain between rosters
Apparently so. Here it is again:
Image

I'm done arguing with your misdirection and deliberate obtuseness, but I will not stand idly by while you lie.
Image

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

Re: Does Player Attrition need to be reviewed?

Postby Koadah » 10 January 2014, 08:54

Heh heh heh.

Where does that data come from?

If there was no attrition I would expect many more elf/skaven teams. So more 4-3, 5-4 games when they met.
I would expect the bashers to still be going for the old 2-1 and maybe not too many more cas against the dodge away teams.

Of course you won't actually have any data until you build the league and see what people really do. ;)
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 » 10 January 2014, 12:15

Apparently so. Here it is again:
This seems to be your new thing... lose an argument in one thread, then pick it up again in another while pretending the previous one didn't happen. There was an entire thread on this topic and graph in which even you ended up admitting that the graph and the theory you based on it were crap but I guess since this is a new thread, and you're you, we're going to pretend it never happened, right?
I'm done arguing with your misdirection and deliberate obtuseness, but I will not stand idly by while you lie.
Cry me a river. It's no lie that you're dunning-kruger's poster boy when it comes to analysis, but you keep on pluggin' away. I have engaged in no misdirection or obtuseness: the only verifiable fact is that there are no verifiable facts supporting your (or angus's) theory that agility players develop in a more focused fashion, or to support the theory you associated with that really crappy graph that agility teams in general develop/recover more quickly in order to compensate for their higher attrition rates. It is, however, a verifiable fact that in perpetual play environments, especially MM environments, agility teams are eclipsed by bash teams in terms of activity and long-term preservation of development. Also, god forbid you ever remember what that thread's topic is or the context of an argument, certainly no evidence that this phantom development advantage agility is supposed to have would be a significant issue with a no-attrition environment even if it does turn out to exist.
If there was no attrition I would expect many more elf/skaven teams. So more 4-3, 5-4 games when they met.
I would expect the bashers to still be going for the old 2-1 and maybe not too many more cas against the dodge away teams.
Do we see more 4-3, 5-4 games in R, or are we talking about when agility teams would meet bash teams? We can look at R for some idea of what an agility-friendly environment can and will result in as far as agility playing agility. I don't think we'd see an instant shift in what bash does in a non-attrition environment, since bash coaches are already not laser-focused on scoring TDs, and many if not most would not change that regardless of long-term attrition. I do think that the highest TV ranges might see some interesting hybrid teams that aren't completely focused on one thing anymore, though.
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 » 10 January 2014, 13:32

crappy graphs that used a narrow range of SPP for the y axis
Not quite the same as
even you ended up admitting that the graph and the theory you based on it were crap
I'll take that as admitting you were wrong about the "purdy little graphs with misleading axes", which was the point I was making - I can live with being wrong, but don't make me out to be deliberately misleading.
You can carry on spitting feathers now :roll:
Heh heh heh.
Indeed ;)
Where does that data come from?
FOL seasons 1-6.
Image

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

Re: Does Player Attrition need to be reviewed?

Postby angus1903 » 11 January 2014, 11:26

[ the only verifiable fact is that there are no verifiable facts supporting your (or angus's) theory that agility players develop in a more focused fashion, or to support the theory you associated with that really crappy graph that agility teams in general develop/recover more quickly in order to compensate for their higher attrition rates.
My theory is that an environment where you simply remove player attrition would favour more agile teams. Despite your nonsensical arguments and deflecting the only data and opinions provided (including Dode's "crappy" graph) back this up.

If you spent less time trying to score points off people and "win" arguments you might actually see that the world doesn't have to be black and white.

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 » 12 January 2014, 11:28

I'll take that as admitting you were wrong about the "purdy little graphs with misleading axes", which was the point I was making - I can live with being wrong, but don't make me out to be deliberately misleading.
Ahh, this is your "Sure, I'm wrong about 99 out of 100 things I've said, but lets focus on the one while I sweep the rest under the rug" - the axis is misleading in that it overemphasizes differences in mean, which you then tried to use to support the argument that agility teams develop faster. What you didn't report were the confidence intervals... you also made multi-info bars with more than two numbers in each, and not meant to be contrast within the bar but between bars, which is always considered to be a misuse of the graph type (because the only values easily contrasted are those at the bottom, or the total... anything else has no aligned tops or bottoms).

You're a piece of work, dode (or, y'know, the actual 4-letter word that's more appropriate than work). Somewhere in 2013 you completely abandoned any focus on finding the truth and have shifted into arguing for the sake of arguing, especially if it pulls a thread off its original topic. You should pull yourself together or take a step back from being what is increasing inappropriately termed a "moderator".
My theory is that an environment where you simply remove player attrition would favour more agile teams. Despite your nonsensical arguments and deflecting the only data and opinions provided (including Dode's "crappy" graph) back this up.
The point is that they DON'T back that theory up. Dode's graph has no meaning, which he himself eventually (very reluctantly and in the least direct way possible) admitted after trying to use it to support a similar argument. If you want to support your theory, what you want to do is head over to FUMBBL and get their R data and use it to show that when agility teams are not forced to face bash teams (the primary source of attrition) they become overrepresented themselves.

See, there exist environments in which agility teams can develop without facing a massive grinder of bash teams as they do in MM environments, and if the only thing that was keeping them in check was bash killers, we'd expect to see agility teams proliferate like under-hunted deer... but that's not what we see. Certainly we see more agility teams in those environments, but the increase just brings them closer to being in line with the proportion of other tier 1 teams, they don't take over the environment as you've suggested.

But hey, don't take my word for it... You could always analyze the data yourself (but I bet you won't) or you could get Koadah to create a proportion table for you to eyeball so you could be as "precise" as dode here.... more precise, even, since it'd have more validity than just feeding your dog a box of crayons and letting him puke on some yellow paper.
If you spent less time trying to score points off people and "win" arguments you might actually see that the world doesn't have to be black and white.
When we're arguing whether something is true or false, it kind'v does, actually.
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 » 12 January 2014, 15:58

Ahh, this is your "Sure, I'm wrong about 99 out of 100 things I've said, but lets focus on the one while I sweep the rest under the rug"
No, this is the bit where I called you out for lying. I dipped out of the main thrust of the thread some posts ago. At least you're admitting I'm right on this one though: it's step forwards for you ;)
I did freely accept in the previous thread that comparing those means wasn't good analysis for the purposes for which I was trying to use it: after it I even sent you a PM asking how to compare such zero-limited distributions at the time, to which you did not respond.
the axis is misleading in that it overemphasizes differences in mean
If I'd started the y-axis at, say, 3, then you might have a point. Since I included all the data for SPP gain which differs from race to race (although I admit I missed interceptions, but doubt they make a huge difference) and started the y-axis at zero then how, exactly, is it misleading?
you also made multi-info bars with more than two numbers in each, and not meant to be contrast within the bar but between bars, which is always considered to be a misuse of the graph type (because the only values easily contrasted are those at the bottom, or the total... anything else has no aligned tops or bottoms).
That chart type was used so that people could compare the total mean SPP gain across races, and the sources within races. It wasn't there so you could eyeball it and say "Undead gain 4.2342 more SPP per game from Cas than Elves". As well you know, the numbers themselves tell you far more.
focus on finding the truth
"The truth" does not always equate to "what Mike says". Perhaps this is where you are having an issue?
Image


Return to “Ideas and Suggestions”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests

cron