Legendary edition: please take out bribe stall for dwarves

Share your ideas and Suggestions about Blood Bowl 2.
Hudd
Posts: 21
Joined: 27 September 2015, 09:57

Re: Legendary edition: please take out bribe stall for dwarves

Postby Hudd » 12 February 2017, 23:41

I notice none of the top few Dwarf teams in COL are using the bribe/death roller combo.

It is not overpowered as the death roller is hugely poor value for TV. The free bribe stadium might make it a decent choice, but... you are giving your opponent a free bribe, which kinda knocks it back to being poor again.

Miraskadu
Posts: 231
Joined: 08 March 2016, 03:05

Re: Legendary edition: please take out bribe stall for dwarves

Postby Miraskadu » 12 February 2017, 23:55

Using the numbers I have, which are available to me. Ok, sure they are stupid. Interesting wording choice. I know that CCL, is rather short. But hey, I work with what I have nothing else.
What you should be able to say is that you lack sufficient data to make any claims, rather than making claims based on insufficient data. Saying "it's all I've got" is not an excuse for that. The fact that one of your ranges covers over 15% should tip you off. You should also be reporting the number of datapoints, not just the ranges, specifically because it lets people know how much you're working with.
Please, read the posts and my claims concerning numbers, again. And then talk again. I did not make any claim, I stated that the claim is not supported by the numbers from the CCL1 and CCL2. And that is still true.
An to the being enlightenment, it apparently seemed to hard to put out any kind of numbers. But then we wouldn't have to beg and wait for your wisdom anymore. Now where would we end up then. Sharing Information, some kind of weird idea.
Oh, you know how to read the results of statistical analyses and post-hoc testing, do you? I tell you what the numbers say not because I'm fostering dependence, but because one way or another that's what I'm going to have to do... and I don't see any point in going through the effort of uploading SPSS output tables and linking them in a post just so you can stare at them and pretend you know what the hell they mean.

Don't want to take my word for it? That's totally fine by me, it'll just result in you being wrong.
By assuming the position of not sharing your results your are fostering a dependence on your word and nothing else. By assuming that only you have the knowledge to read and have the correct numbers you are increasing said dependence. If you feel it too much effort to undermine your statements, which you claim to be settled in data, and not willing or able to to put those numbers forth. So what conclusions should I take from that? Faith that you will always tell the truth? Kinda hard to put faith into a stranger on the net. ;)

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

Re: Legendary edition: please take out bribe stall for dwarves

Postby VoodooMike » 13 February 2017, 01:34

Please, read the posts and my claims concerning numbers, again. And then talk again. I did not make any claim, I stated that the claim is not supported by the numbers from the CCL1 and CCL2. And that is still true.
Oh look, you're like Dode jr! You're wrong, but you're going to argue at length that you were right, you were just answering a different question and it was everyone else's mistake for assuming that it wasn't the actual obvious question that had been asked.

You didn't specify CCL1 and CCL2, you stated:
dwarves winrate does not increase if they have a bribe stadium or not
That right there is a claim, and it's incorrect.
By assuming the position of not sharing your results your are fostering a dependence on your word and nothing else.
I told you the results: you're wrong, because the stadium upgrade that gives a bribe has a statistically significant positive effect on dwarf win rates. You're eyeballing confidence intervals, and that's not a legitimate method in the first place.
By assuming that only you have the knowledge to read and have the correct numbers you are increasing said dependence.
It doesn't increase anyone's dependence, no. You have access to the data so your dependence is based on the fact that you don't know how to properly work with the data, and that has nothing to do with me unless you seriously imagine I'm here to teach you statistics. I'm not.
So what conclusions should I take from that? Faith that you will always tell the truth? Kinda hard to put faith into a stranger on the net.
Sorry, you're mistaking me for someone who cares. What you do or do not believe is inconsequential - you can choose to believe anything you want. The real question is whether you want to know the truth or not... though the concern you really have is the same one dode usually has: a worry about being seen as wrong by some perceived audience, which trumps your need to actually be right.
Friendly Reminder: Correlation does not equal Causation - tattoo it on the inside of your eyelids if it'll help.

triperis
Posts: 26
Joined: 06 January 2017, 06:31

Re: Legendary edition: please take out bribe stall for dwarves

Postby triperis » 13 February 2017, 09:41

Guys, the very premise of removing the enhancement is stupid. "I feel dorfs are OP with free bribe every 2nd game". another guy shows up and says "I have some data, looking at it, I cannot confirm bribes for dorfs are OP". then another guy says "I still feel dorfs are OP with dorfs".

Irrespective of whether dorfs are OP with bribes, or not, feeling is not a valid basis to do anything. Blood Bowl is naturally salt-causing game, and if we went with every feeling, the game would go completely of the rails, with fan favorite races getting completely OP just because somebody lost to somebody because of bad dice vs. unpopular race.

If you think somebody "destroying your team" on COL is bad, you need to realize that if you still won, your next game will actually be vs. weaker opponent in a completely different meta, which is a boon, not something detrimental. sure, you get attached to your stars, but that should not get you disillusioned they will not be removed of the pitch one way or another.

Miraskadu
Posts: 231
Joined: 08 March 2016, 03:05

Re: Legendary edition: please take out bribe stall for dwarves

Postby Miraskadu » 13 February 2017, 11:01

Please, read the posts and my claims concerning numbers, again. And then talk again. I did not make any claim, I stated that the claim is not supported by the numbers from the CCL1 and CCL2. And that is still true.
Oh look, you're like Dode jr! You're wrong, but you're going to argue at length that you were right, you were just answering a different question and it was everyone else's mistake for assuming that it wasn't the actual obvious question that had been asked.
The OP made the claim that the bribe stadium makes the dwarves OP. I stated that the numbers in CCL do not support this, yes in my second post and not straight in my first post. This is called a refutal of a claim. I'm not making a claim, just stating your claim is not supported by the numbers.

Secondly, this was as information how I arrived at that conclusion. Yes, this conclusion is apperantly and accordingly to you wrong. (Which I never said that you were. But ok I spell it out for you You were right. Happy?)
You didn't specify CCL1 and CCL2, you stated:
dwarves winrate does not increase if they have a bribe stadium or not
That right there is a claim, and it's incorrect.
See above.
By assuming the position of not sharing your results your are fostering a dependence on your word and nothing else.
I told you the results: you're wrong, because the stadium upgrade that gives a bribe has a statistically significant positive effect on dwarf win rates. You're eyeballing confidence intervals, and that's not a legitimate method in the first place.
Yes, you are telling and everyone else has to listen. So how much does the winrate increase? What are the numbers you are quoting in text here without giving them out?
By assuming that only you have the knowledge to read and have the correct numbers you are increasing said dependence.
It doesn't increase anyone's dependence, no. You have access to the data so your dependence is based on the fact that you don't know how to properly work with the data, and that has nothing to do with me unless you seriously imagine I'm here to teach you statistics. I'm not.
No, I don't expect you to teach statistics here. As I said previous I have the data for CCL1 & 2, you have the COL data as well. So apperantly I don't have access to the data, but thanks for assumming what I have and can or can not do.
So what conclusions should I take from that? Faith that you will always tell the truth? Kinda hard to put faith into a stranger on the net.
Sorry, you're mistaking me for someone who cares. What you do or do not believe is inconsequential - you can choose to believe anything you want. The real question is whether you want to know the truth or not... though the concern you really have is the same one dode usually has: a worry about being seen as wrong by some perceived audience, which trumps your need to actually be right.
And again you are of with assumption, I don't have a problem with being wrong. I just have a problem with people sitting in an Ivory tower and acting like their are throwing pearls of wisdom at people.

What have you done, you stated I was wrong. Good. And that it is improves the win rate but not by what margin or how high. Are we talking and increase by 5% by 10% by 40%? We never know since you apperantly have the data and the numbers, but are to stubborn to say.

And by the amount you are posting you actually seem to care. ;)

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

Re: Legendary edition: please take out bribe stall for dwarves

Postby VoodooMike » 13 February 2017, 19:04

The OP made the claim that the bribe stadium makes the dwarves OP. I stated that the numbers in CCL do not support this, yes in my second post and not straight in my first post. This is called a refutal of a claim. I'm not making a claim, just stating your claim is not supported by the numbers.
Ok, Dode Jr... lets pretend a refutation isn't also a claim. One person claims something, another person claims they're wrong... but that's not a claim, that's something we're assigning a totally new word to!
Secondly, this was as information how I arrived at that conclusion. Yes, this conclusion is apperantly and accordingly to you wrong.
Yes, you're wrong in your claim (or "refutation" or "smork" or whatever bullcrap you want to call it) not simply because you used a poor dataset, but because your comparisons are invalid statistical comparisons.

You can take a distribution with an alpha level of 0.05 and compare it to a straight number... that's fine... if you take two distributions and compare them to each other you're combining the inaccuracy, so your comparison no longer has that 95% certainty.
Yes, you are telling and everyone else has to listen.
Nobody has to listen, no. People who want to know the truth about things probably should... but if doing so wounds your self-esteem then cleave to your mistakes and inaccuracies to your heart's content.
So how much does the winrate increase? What are the numbers you are quoting in text here without giving them out?
Trying to quantify the increase is a whole different can of worms. The question being answered is "can we say with 95% certainty that the free bribe stadium upgrade improves the win rate of dwarf teams as a whole" and the answer is "yes". Trying to say "it improves their win% by 6 percent!" would be disingenuous... how much it affects any given team will depend on many factors. Looking at the averages would give us numbers, but not numbers that ultimately had much practical meaning.
So apperantly I don't have access to the data, but thanks for assumming what I have and can or can not do.
I know what you can and can't do. I've watched you try to talk stats in various threads, and you make blaring conceptual errors almost every time... such as the eyeball comparison of distributions this time, or trying to treat percentage of distribution width as a means of estimating probability from overlap in that other thread.

You very comfortably assume that because some random method you're using makes sense to you that it's valid... and routinely it is not. It's what makes you a menace to the facts - you don't learn because you assume you already know, and you spread inaccuracy quite liberally in the process.
I just have a problem with people sitting in an Ivory tower and acting like their are throwing pearls of wisdom at people.
Suck it up, buttercup. Taking personal offense at my "attitude" is a waste of time... especially since you're arguing with me in one of the areas I'm strongest in and you're weakest in. You should pick your battles more carefully.
We never know since you apperantly have the data and the numbers, but are to stubborn to say.
..and again, the numbers in question are not some basic percentage for you to compare. You presume they are because that makes sense to your beady little brain, but this isn't eyeballing of a couple of numbers.
And by the amount you are posting you actually seem to care. ;)
I care about accuracy, but I don't care about your concerns. You're trying to weasel your way around your mistakes and I'm calling you to task on them. Every time you post another bit trying to excuse yourself you grind away at your future credibility on such topics. I'm only too happy to help you dig that hole because it helps build up a lasting resistance to your future errors.
Friendly Reminder: Correlation does not equal Causation - tattoo it on the inside of your eyelids if it'll help.

Miraskadu
Posts: 231
Joined: 08 March 2016, 03:05

Re: Legendary edition: please take out bribe stall for dwarves

Postby Miraskadu » 17 February 2017, 18:21

The OP made the claim that the bribe stadium makes the dwarves OP. I stated that the numbers in CCL do not support this, yes in my second post and not straight in my first post. This is called a refutal of a claim. I'm not making a claim, just stating your claim is not supported by the numbers.
Ok, Dode Jr... lets pretend a refutation isn't also a claim. One person claims something, another person claims they're wrong... but that's not a claim, that's something we're assigning a totally new word to!
And well into semantics, fun times. But ok, if you want to state that refuting a claim is a claim, my claim was wrong, happy?
Nobody has to listen, no. People who want to know the truth about things probably should... but if doing so wounds your self-esteem then cleave to your mistakes and inaccuracies to your heart's content.
So you are setting yourself up as the fountain of truth? Ok, roger that.
So how much does the winrate increase? What are the numbers you are quoting in text here without giving them out?
Trying to quantify the increase is a whole different can of worms. The question being answered is "can we say with 95% certainty that the free bribe stadium upgrade improves the win rate of dwarf teams as a whole" and the answer is "yes". Trying to say "it improves their win% by 6 percent!" would be disingenuous... how much it affects any given team will depend on many factors. Looking at the averages would give us numbers, but not numbers that ultimately had much practical meaning.
You do realize that actually reporting the new winrate for dwarves with a bribe stadium is actually the crux for the claim of the OP?
No it's not. I think you just don't enjoy playing against Dwarf teams. A lot of people don't... but the bribe doesn't make their wins a forgone conclusion by any means.
the stadium upgrade shows a statistically significant increase in win rates as compared to lacking it, or compared to pretty much any other upgrade.
So we have an increase? You cannot or don't want to tell by how much. But also stating that it is of no concern. I'm not going to ask you for any real information into this topic since you made it clear that you don't want to give any.
You very comfortably assume that because some random method you're using makes sense to you that it's valid... and routinely it is not. It's what makes you a menace to the facts - you don't learn because you assume you already know, and you spread inaccuracy quite liberally in the process.
And again you are assuming that I don't want to learn. But sure it makes the argument from yourside easier.
Suck it up, buttercup. Taking personal offense at my "attitude" is a waste of time... especially since you're arguing with me in one of the areas I'm strongest in and you're weakest in. You should pick your battles more carefully.
I'm not even arguing with you about how you should treat the numbers and what the right statistical analysis would be. I was talking about human relationships and communication skills, but I can clearly see that is one of your weakest area so sorry for imposing that on you.
We never know since you apperantly have the data and the numbers, but are to stubborn to say.
..and again, the numbers in question are not some basic percentage for you to compare. You presume they are because that makes sense to your beady little brain, but this isn't eyeballing of a couple of numbers.
As said above, it is quite essential for the first claim if the bribe enhancement is OP or not, to what range the win% of dwarves gets shifted. (Disclaimer: The following numbers are made up on the spot and are only here to illustrate the point.) Let's say dwarves without bribe stadium have a winrate of 46-48%. So if dwarves with bribe stadium have a winrate of 60-65% or even from 70-75%, the argument about the enhancement being OP can be made. Even so the win is not a forgone conlusion. And yes I am assuming that the distribution are statistically different from each other.
I care about accuracy, but I don't care about your concerns. You're trying to weasel your way around your mistakes and I'm calling you to task on them. Every time you post another bit trying to excuse yourself you grind away at your future credibility on such topics. I'm only too happy to help you dig that hole because it helps build up a lasting resistance to your future errors.
I have the tendency to own up to my mistakes, if they get pointed out to me or I'm aware of them by other means. So as stated in previous post, yes, I have been wrong about the assumption that the bribe stadium does not increase the win rate of dwarves. So if you want to read my further posts and point out statistical or mathematical errors I do, feel free to do so. I'm happy to learn something and even if it is only that I made a mistake.

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

Re: Legendary edition: please take out bribe stall for dwarves

Postby VoodooMike » 17 February 2017, 19:45

So you are setting yourself up as the fountain of truth? Ok, roger that.
Within the limits of my ability to be so yes, I am the fountain of truth. When I lack sufficient information to run the appropriate numbers on a question I say so, and in those cases nobody is the much-vaunted fountain, unless they somehow have more data than I do and actually know how to use it. The latter is very uncommon.
You do realize that actually reporting the new winrate for dwarves with a bribe stadium is actually the crux for the claim of the OP?
I do realize that for a data-driven refutation of the OP's claim it would require such numbers, yes... but I'm not arguing with the OP about his claim, I'm arguing with you about your claim, and that does not require such numbers.
So we have an increase? You cannot or don't want to tell by how much. But also stating that it is of no concern. I'm not going to ask you for any real information into this topic since you made it clear that you don't want to give any.
There are a series of additional statistical procedures that could be use to estimate the proportion of variance explained by the effect, but they're separate from determining if the effect exists in the first place. You seem utterly convinced that to know there's an effect I must have determined the size of the effect, and that simply ain't so.
And again you are assuming that I don't want to learn. But sure it makes the argument from yourside easier.
I consider it a safe assumption given the fact that you've continued to spend time arguing this, but have spend no time on learning the things you claim to want to learn. THAT is what makes my argument easy.
I was talking about human relationships and communication skills, but I can clearly see that is one of your weakest area so sorry for imposing that on you.
I see you're another one of those self-absorbed people who imagines that if someone doesn't get along with them they must be incapable of getting along with anyone. In this case it's not my attitude that is getting in the way of me getting the answers I want, is it? Maybe its your social skills you should be worried about.
As said above, it is quite essential for the first claim if the bribe enhancement is OP or not, to what range the win% of dwarves gets shifted.
For the OP's claim it is. For you being wrong in your claims that the stadium upgrades do not result in a demonstrable improvement in win rates it is not. You need further numbers to be able to engage the OP in an argument about his claims, I do not need any more to engage you in one about yours.
I have the tendency to own up to my mistakes, if they get pointed out to me or I'm aware of them by other means. So as stated in previous post, yes, I have been wrong about the assumption that the bribe stadium does not increase the win rate of dwarves. So if you want to read my further posts and point out statistical or mathematical errors I do, feel free to do so. I'm happy to learn something and even if it is only that I made a mistake.
There you go. And it only took you how many posts to get there? You may yet lose the Dode Jr. label at this rate since that's progress he has yet to make.. maybe he'll be Miraskadu Jr. instead!
Friendly Reminder: Correlation does not equal Causation - tattoo it on the inside of your eyelids if it'll help.

Miraskadu
Posts: 231
Joined: 08 March 2016, 03:05

Re: Legendary edition: please take out bribe stall for dwarves

Postby Miraskadu » 17 February 2017, 20:24

You do realize that actually reporting the new winrate for dwarves with a bribe stadium is actually the crux for the claim of the OP?
I do realize that for a data-driven refutation of the OP's claim it would require such numbers, yes... but I'm not arguing with the OP about his claim, I'm arguing with you about your claim, and that does not require such numbers.
No it's not. I think you just don't enjoy playing against Dwarf teams. A lot of people don't... but the bribe doesn't make their wins a forgone conclusion by any means.
So telling the OP that the reason is he just doesn't like to play vs Dwarf, as well as stating that the bribe is not giving a clear win, sounds like a rebuttal to me. Or in your words as a claim that a bribe stadium doesn't make the dwarves OP.
There are a series of additional statistical procedures that could be use to estimate the proportion of variance explained by the effect, but they're separate from determining if the effect exists in the first place. You seem utterly convinced that to know there's an effect I must have determined the size of the effect, and that simply ain't so.
I'm aware that establishing the effect is not a determination of the size. My bad if you misunderstood me there.

I was talking about human relationships and communication skills, but I can clearly see that is one of your weakest area so sorry for imposing that on you.
I see you're another one of those self-absorbed people who imagines that if someone doesn't get along with them they must be incapable of getting along with anyone. In this case it's not my attitude that is getting in the way of me getting the answers I want, is it? Maybe its your social skills you should be worried about.
I'm basing this on your post history, which is usually riddled with personal attacks and so forth. And you are aiming those and a vast portion of this community, but on the bright side, this has been a post without any attacks. So yes, you might confince me still otherwise.
For the OP's claim it is. For you being wrong in your claims that the stadium upgrades do not result in a demonstrable improvement in win rates it is not. You need further numbers to be able to engage the OP in an argument about his claims, I do not need any more to engage you in one about yours.
As said above you came into the conversation with a disagreement to the OP point as well, so I just asked you for data, you apperantly have to further the discussion (Data = winrate of the dwarves with and without bribe stadium)
There you go. And it only took you how many posts to get there? You may yet lose the Dode Jr. label at this rate since that's progress he has yet to make.. maybe he'll be Miraskadu Jr. instead!
Let me count the posts.

You made the argument:
I have COL data. It says "miraskadu is wrong". Consider yourself enlightened.
The next post directly under yours:
But sure if you say that COL shows a different numbers, I stand corrected.
So actually about 1 post. If you count the extra post where I was asking on what data you used, it is 2 posts, still not that long.

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

Re: Legendary edition: please take out bribe stall for dwarves

Postby VoodooMike » 17 February 2017, 21:07

So telling the OP that the reason is he just doesn't like to play vs Dwarf, as well as stating that the bribe is not giving a clear win, sounds like a rebuttal to me. Or in your words as a claim that a bribe stadium doesn't make the dwarves OP.
You've managed to puzzle out that my refutation of his claim was not data-driven. Congratulations. One doesn't need data to refute a claim that isn't based on data. I knew he was just stating his feelings as fact. If people started pushing the matter then I might have had to graduate to numbers... or if I just felt like it.

It was you who attempted a data-driven refutation, and you failed. I don't like people misusing data like that so I called you out on it.
I'm aware that establishing the effect is not a determination of the size.
Are you? It makes me wonder why you keep claiming I'm somehow hiding numbers and/or refusing to give them, then.
I'm basing this on your post history, which is usually riddled with personal attacks and so forth.
So you're basing it on not really understanding what social skills are. Got it. I imagine the world must be a baffling place if you imagine it has to do with being nice to everybody. I mean, how do those miserable politicians and business people manage to get where they are despite being so uncouth? Why do so many saints end their lives murdered? It's madness!

At their most basic, social skills are the ability to create and upkeep the relationships you want to have with other people in order to create interpersonal outcomes that you desire. You, like most people around here, have nothing to offer me as human beings.. so I feel no imperative to create or upkeep positive relationships with you.
So yes, you might confince me still otherwise.
Oh boy, I hope so... because that's where the money is!
So actually about 1 post. If you count the extra post where I was asking on what data you used, it is 2 posts, still not that long.
Tsk, should have quit while you were ahead. You spent several posts excusing your errors by saying you were right but were using different data. If you want to have an extended discussion about your wrongness we can, but I'm not sure what you think you'll get out of it. Or hey, lets talk more about the precision of our identification of your wrongness... that'll continue to be fun, too!
Friendly Reminder: Correlation does not equal Causation - tattoo it on the inside of your eyelids if it'll help.


Return to “Ideas and Suggestions”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests

cron