|
|
Post by Azuresun on Oct 5, 2017 18:49:32 GMT
Thank you all for the clearer explanations. Professorlust seems to be particularly averse to educating people  An uncharitable reader might assume he's wrapping his arguments in unnecessary jargon to make them harder to address. |
|
|
|
WTC Stats
Oct 5, 2017 20:03:58 GMT
via mobile
Post by octaviusmaximus on Oct 5, 2017 20:03:58 GMT
Thank you all for the clearer explanations. Professorlust seems to be particularly averse to educating people Enroll in a class if you want an education. Im currently taking intro to statistics. I find that irrelevant to understanding a post by some guy on a forum who is refusing to clarify his statements. |
|
|
|
WTC Stats
Oct 5, 2017 20:08:40 GMT
via mobile
Post by oncomingstorm on Oct 5, 2017 20:08:40 GMT
professorlust: you're using individual winrate as a proxy for skill, and team winrate is the variable you're measuring. Individual winrate is a component of team winrate, so your stats are going to be off. Regardless, I dont agree with your operationalizing player skill as '6-0 record.' it's not at all obvious that players who are 6-0 are any more skilled than those who go, say, 5-1, due to the impact of luck and the matchup process. Over a large enough sample, you'd expect that to be the case, but there are neither enough players not enough games that I'd be confident it applies here. Really, the better test would be to look at previous WTCs and determine what the winrate of the best faction in those years was, and compare it to the 2017 results. Still a too small sample size, but producing a more meaningful result than your analysis.
|
|
|
|
WTC Stats
Oct 5, 2017 20:27:43 GMT
via mobile
Post by professorlust on Oct 5, 2017 20:27:43 GMT
professorlust: you're using individual winrate as a proxy for skill, and team winrate is the variable you're measuring. Individual winrate is a component of team winrate, so your stats are going to be off. Regardless, I dont agree with your operationalizing player skill as '6-0 record.' it's not at all obvious that players who are 6-0 are any more skilled than those who go, say, 5-1, due to the impact of luck and the matchup process. Over a large enough sample, you'd expect that to be the case, but there are neither enough players not enough games that I'd be confident it applies here. Really, the better test would be to look at previous WTCs and determine what the winrate of the best faction in those years was, and compare it to the 2017 results. Still a too small sample size, but producing a more meaningful result than your analysis. First to sample size, I'm not attempting to extrapolate my findings beyond this WTC. I'm unconcerned with any previous WTC, because I only care about putting into context the claim that due to raw win rate, we can claim Cryx is OP. Moreover my data isn't a sample when it's the entire population. Moreover an N of 1600 matches and 160 rounds is quite good when you have the entire population. Secondly to operationalization, I'm not looking to prove cryx as a faction didn't perform well, nor thatas a faction they didn't out perform other factions, simply that you can't say that Playing Cryx is primarily what lead to these outcomes. So what I'm looking at is what effects playing cryx actually had at the WTC. Since this is a team event wherein all matches are selected by players for the theoretical benefit of one team or the other, no match exists independent of each other. As such there will be an interaction between an individual players wins and team wins because that's the nature of the event, to create matchups that lead to wins, and that's why we look at collinearity. The collinearity between team wins and individual wins is present but so low as to be barely remarkable (VIF<1.3). There's more collinearity beteeen team total match wins and individual match wins but it's still low (VIF<1.5) |
|
|
|
Post by Aegis on Oct 5, 2017 20:47:10 GMT
professorlust : The problem is, I think, that you are measuring a thing that most people aren't really interested about. Most people aren't here to understand if putting more Cryx players into a WTC team would increase the chance of over-all victory of a team (that is a thing that likely interests only WTC team leaders), but if Cryx is or isn't over the normal power curve. Also, your measure (Cryx relevance into team victory) doesn't really negates the claim that "High win rate = Cryx OP". This because the relevance of a particular faction in a team is a component very small into the actual team result. Even supposing that all other factors (luck, skill, etc...) are equal (a thing not true, expecially with a sample so small as a single tournament), the relevance of a single member of a 5 man team into the team victory would just be 1/5. If you then add that with a sample so small, factors like luck, skill of team-mates, match-ups, etc... are totaly un-evenly spread, that 1/5 factor becomes very difficult to measure, and so it's obvious that the results are "data insufficient". With a single event as sample, if the worst team had multiple Cryx players, or if players playing Cryx had poor team-mates, their contribute could easily be made null by those factors. With a big enough sample, the thing would probably be different. In practice, measuring "Cryx relevance into a team win", you are adding a lot of "noise" factors that blur the statistic, and so it doesn't surprise me if the results are "Having a Cryx member doesn't matter much", because the in the thing you are measuring, there are so many factors included that the faction of a single member of the team is obviously minor. In that regard, while a single tournament will never prove anything, looking at the win-rate of the single matches of Cryx players is much more telling, since there are less "noise" factors included. It doesn't matter the skill of other members of the team or the factions they are playing, it's just a Cryx player against another faction player, and presuming there will be around both great and less great (because "bad" at WTC wouldn't fit well) both in Cryx and outside Cryx, seeing that the player that plays Cryx wins 7 times on 10 seems to suggest something significant. A single tournament, won't be enough to "prove" it, but for sure it could point a trend that is worth discussing.
|
|
|
|
WTC Stats
Oct 5, 2017 21:18:55 GMT
via mobile
Post by professorlust on Oct 5, 2017 21:18:55 GMT
professorlust : The problem is, I think, that you are measuring a thing that most people aren't really interested about. Most people aren't here to understand if putting more Cryx players into a WTC team would increase the chance of over-all victory of a team (that is a thing that likely interests only WTC team leaders), but if Cryx is or isn't over the normal power curve. Also, your measure (Cryx relevance into team victory) doesn't really negates the claim that "High win rate = Cryx OP". This because the relevance of a particular faction in a team is a component very small into the actual team result. Even supposing that all other factors (luck, skill, etc...) are equal (a thing not true, expecially with a sample so small as a single tournament), the relevance of a single member of a 5 man team into the team victory would just be 1/5. If you then add that with a sample so small, factors like luck, skill of team-mates, match-ups, etc... are totaly un-evenly spread, that 1/5 factor becomes very difficult to measure, and so it's obvious that the results are "data insufficient". With a single event as sample, if the worst team had multiple Cryx players, or if players playing Cryx had poor team-mates, their contribute could easily be made null by those factors. With a big enough sample, the thing would probably be different. In practice, measuring "Cryx relevance into a team win", you are adding a lot of "noise" factors that blur the statistic, and so it doesn't surprise me if the results are "Having a Cryx member doesn't matter much", because the in the thing you are measuring, there are so many factors included that the faction of a single member of the team is obviously minor. In that regard, while a single tournament will never prove anything, looking at the win-rate of the single matches of Cryx players is much more telling, since there are less "noise" factors included. It doesn't matter the skill of other members of the team or the factions they are playing, it's just a Cryx player against another faction player, and presuming there will be around both great and less great (because "bad" at WTC wouldn't fit well) both in Cryx and outside Cryx, seeing that the player that plays Cryx wins 7 times on 10 seem to suggest something significant. A single tournament, won't be enough to "prove" it, but for sure it could point a trend that is worth discussing. A) Im not doing this for people. I'm doing this because people are over reacting. I'm not surprised that people are reacting negatively to an evidence based argument that undermines the DOOOOOOOOOM! narrative. B) yes less noise in raw win rates. However ignoring things makes them silent but it doesn't render them less impactful. Just leaves you grasping in the dark without a flash light. |
|
|
|
WTC Stats
Oct 5, 2017 21:24:19 GMT
via mobile
Post by octaviusmaximus on Oct 5, 2017 21:24:19 GMT
professorlust : The problem is, I think, that you are measuring a thing that most people aren't really interested about. Most people aren't here to understand if putting more Cryx players into a WTC team would increase the chance of over-all victory of a team (that is a thing that likely interests only WTC team leaders), but if Cryx is or isn't over the normal power curve. Also, your measure (Cryx relevance into team victory) doesn't really negates the claim that "High win rate = Cryx OP". This because the relevance of a particular faction in a team is a component very small into the actual team result. Even supposing that all other factors (luck, skill, etc...) are equal (a thing not true, expecially with a sample so small as a single tournament), the relevance of a single member of a 5 man team into the team victory would just be 1/5. If you then add that with a sample so small, factors like luck, skill of team-mates, match-ups, etc... are totaly un-evenly spread, that 1/5 factor becomes very difficult to measure, and so it's obvious that the results are "data insufficient". With a single event as sample, if the worst team had multiple Cryx players, or if players playing Cryx had poor team-mates, their contribute could easily be made null by those factors. With a big enough sample, the thing would probably be different. In practice, measuring "Cryx relevance into a team win", you are adding a lot of "noise" factors that blur the statistic, and so it doesn't surprise me if the results are "Having a Cryx member doesn't matter much", because the in the thing you are measuring, there are so many factors included that the faction of a single member of the team is obviously minor. In that regard, while a single tournament will never prove anything, looking at the win-rate of the single matches of Cryx players is much more telling, since there are less "noise" factors included. It doesn't matter the skill of other members of the team or the factions they are playing, it's just a Cryx player against another faction player, and presuming there will be around both great and less great (because "bad" at WTC wouldn't fit well) both in Cryx and outside Cryx, seeing that the player that plays Cryx wins 7 times on 10 seem to suggest something significant. A single tournament, won't be enough to "prove" it, but for sure it could point a trend that is worth discussing. A) Im not doing this for people. I'm doing this because people are over reacting. I'm not surprised that people are reacting negatively to an evidence based argument that undermines the DOOOOOOOOOM! narrative. B) yes less noise in raw win rates. However ignoring things makes them silent but it doesn't render them less impactful. Just leaves you grasping in the dark without a flash light. Acting that people are irrationally going against your argument when they are saying that your argument is flawed is a failure of logic. |
|
|
|
Post by Aegis on Oct 5, 2017 21:35:58 GMT
A) Im not doing this for people. I'm doing this because people are over reacting. I'm not surprised that people are reacting negatively to an evidence based argument that undermines the DOOOOOOOOOM! narrative. B) yes less noise in raw win rates. However ignoring things makes them silent but it doesn't render them less impactful. Just leaves you grasping in the dark without a flash light. You are right, people tend to jump to conclusions and over-react, but they are over-reacting to the possibility of Cryx being too powerful as a faction in a steamroller match, so trying to prove that a single faction hasn't much weight on the winning chances of a team tournament (so a different thing) isn't going to make people calm down. It's like trying to calm people that say that smoking is bad for health demostrating that smoke doesn't make you lose sight (so a specific part of the general health, that doesn't really prove that smoking isn't bad for health). They are two different arguments. That said, thanks for the effort into making those statistics. They are still interesting, even if not strictly related to the power of the Cryx faction in general (that may or may not being OP. I also usually advise on caution into interpretation of a single tournament result, expecially team tournaments. That said, I also think that a 70% win-rate is still something worth discussing, even without jumping at conclusions). |
|
zich
Junior Strategist
Posts: 690 
|
Post by zich on Oct 5, 2017 21:44:06 GMT
Thank you all for the clearer explanations. Professorlust seems to be particularly averse to educating people An uncharitable reader might assume he's wrapping his arguments in unnecessary jargon to make them harder to address. Not addressing voiced concerns is another thing that might indicate this. I understand that one would ask for compensation for education provided, but the attitude displayed is less than favorable to the writer's point. To put it politely. |
|
|
|
Post by Aegis on Oct 5, 2017 21:53:20 GMT
An uncharitable reader might assume he's wrapping his arguments in unnecessary jargon to make them harder to address. Not addressing voiced concerns is another thing that might indicate this. I understand that one would ask for compensation for education provided, but the attitude displayed is less than favorable to the writer's point. To put it politely.
I would ask everyone here (so both professorlust and people attacking him) to be nice and polite with each other, focussing on discussing the matter (WTC results and Cryx performance) and not on the attitude of other people. |
|
|
|
Post by Gamingdevil on Oct 6, 2017 6:42:38 GMT
To move away from the statistics discussion for the moment ... I’ve been thinking about Cryx’s fantastic win-rate at the WTC, and I have started to wonder what role the new Steamroller 2017 rules might have had in helping Cryx along. I haven’t really seen many people talking about this, but it seems to me that the greater amount of terrain on the board with 2017 is great for Cryx. All of the terrain helps block LOS to Cryx’s delicate ‘jacks, protecting them from shooting so they can get up the board. Furthermore, with all of the Ghost Walk casters, it is easier for Cryx to get around the terrain (even buildings), and Dark Host ramps ghostly up to the point that terrain doesn’t affect Cryx’s infantry much, except to block LOS. Cygnar and other shooting factions are probably far less happy with all of the LOS blocking terrain, and factions that don’t have access to things like Pathfinder are probably unhappy as well. So, is SR17 in some way partly responsible for Cryx’s great success at WTC? When it comes to Cryx’s reviled casters, the Witch Coven has been strong since the start of Mk3, but not completely overpowering. What changed was the introduction of SR17. The Coven brings a whole bunch of spells that aid in maneuverability, which is what makes them tricky to play against, and it also helps them to overcome the terrain (or make better use of it). Finally, the Coven also has a new advantage in SR17 in that it can split up to score multiple scenario elements, although I don’t know how often that happend in WTC games. So, I’m not sure that the Coven is the same problem without SR17 - again, they are strong caster, but they weren’t a major problem until SR17. Deneghra1 is perhaps another story, but part of her strength in SR17 is being a Ghost Walk caster in a world with lots of terrain. So, again I wonder whether SR17 is partly responsible for Cryx’s success. Did Cryx do so well in part due to the fact that it has multiple ways to take advantage of and get around all of the terrain? I’d add that the Cryx themes encourage well-rounded armies (lots of infantry, solos, and then a few ‘jacks bought with battlegroup points), which also likely helps with putting on scoring pressure in SR17. Any thoughts? It may be be worth noting that the tables at this year's WTC were deliberately skewed, to make choosing tables more impactful. Some were mostly hills, some had a bunch of clouds and shallow water, others had multiple relatively large buildings. The main Cryx casters at the WTC were Denny 1 and Coven who both have Ghost Walk while the latter has additional movement tricks as well. When playing casters like this, even choosing tables can be a huge boon. So it might also be a factor that most people didn't build to exploit tables like this, while Cryx can do it naturally. |
|
|
|
Post by skathrex on Oct 6, 2017 8:39:49 GMT
To move away from the statistics discussion for the moment ... I’ve been thinking about Cryx’s fantastic win-rate at the WTC, and I have started to wonder what role the new Steamroller 2017 rules might have had in helping Cryx along. I haven’t really seen many people talking about this, but it seems to me that the greater amount of terrain on the board with 2017 is great for Cryx. All of the terrain helps block LOS to Cryx’s delicate ‘jacks, protecting them from shooting so they can get up the board. Furthermore, with all of the Ghost Walk casters, it is easier for Cryx to get around the terrain (even buildings), and Dark Host ramps ghostly up to the point that terrain doesn’t affect Cryx’s infantry much, except to block LOS. Cygnar and other shooting factions are probably far less happy with all of the LOS blocking terrain, and factions that don’t have access to things like Pathfinder are probably unhappy as well. So, is SR17 in some way partly responsible for Cryx’s great success at WTC? When it comes to Cryx’s reviled casters, the Witch Coven has been strong since the start of Mk3, but not completely overpowering. What changed was the introduction of SR17. The Coven brings a whole bunch of spells that aid in maneuverability, which is what makes them tricky to play against, and it also helps them to overcome the terrain (or make better use of it). Finally, the Coven also has a new advantage in SR17 in that it can split up to score multiple scenario elements, although I don’t know how often that happend in WTC games. So, I’m not sure that the Coven is the same problem without SR17 - again, they are strong caster, but they weren’t a major problem until SR17. Deneghra1 is perhaps another story, but part of her strength in SR17 is being a Ghost Walk caster in a world with lots of terrain. So, again I wonder whether SR17 is partly responsible for Cryx’s success. Did Cryx do so well in part due to the fact that it has multiple ways to take advantage of and get around all of the terrain? I’d add that the Cryx themes encourage well-rounded armies (lots of infantry, solos, and then a few ‘jacks bought with battlegroup points), which also likely helps with putting on scoring pressure in SR17. Any thoughts? It may be be worth noting that the tables at this year's WTC were deliberately skewed, to make choosing tables more impactful. Some were mostly hills, some had a bunch of clouds and shallow water, others had multiple relatively large buildings. The main Cryx casters at the WTC were Denny 1 and Coven who both have Ghost Walk while the latter has additional movement tricks as well. When playing casters like this, even choosing tables can be a huge boon. So it might also be a factor that most people didn't build to exploit tables like this, while Cryx can do it naturally. I think its absolutely a factor in Cryx performance. Not really for the Jacks, but Dark Host pretty much ignores all terrain, while Coven can score really well in SR17 an has a good control feat. |
|
|
|
Post by 36cygnar24guy36 on Oct 6, 2017 8:49:36 GMT
I agree terrain would definitely have been a factor
|
|
|
|
Post by celeb on Oct 6, 2017 10:28:05 GMT
Terrain might have been a minor factor. But I think that Cryx as a whole is problematic at the moment. Just consider this:
- People were prepared for Cryx
- Cryx still managed to have a 70% winrate with every matchup being over 50% winrate.
Even though this was a team tournament that can skew the results, this high of a winrate is at least an indicator. If Cryx (and Grymkin, for that matter) would be able to maintain these winrates, these winrates are telling us that the balance is completely broken.
I see several problematic things in Cryx:
Bane Riders: One of the best Cavalry units (maybe even the best) in the game.In a faction that is supposedly made of subpar models, but very strong casters, they are just crazy.
Wraith Engine: I don't know where to start here. Dark Shroud and Incorporeal are good as a start. The creation of Machine wraiths should most likely be dependent on the Engine killing the model, so that it at least loses Incoporeal. Upping Bane Warriors to ARM 17 and Riders to ARM 20 against shooting is also just bananas. I think it shouldn't be allowed in Dark Host.
Ghost Fleet: Well, you better have a counter for this list, or you basically auto-lose. If you have a counter, congratulations, you now get to play an even game. Well, hopefully your list also covers Dark Host...
Witch Coven: The Feat is just as good, if not even Better than Denny1's. The huge Control Zone and the -2 to MAT and RAT make it a "skip your turn" button.
Denny1: Her Feat needs the Haley2 treatment.
On top of that, we didn't even see what Black industries and the Satyxis Theme can do. Cryx just needs a big nerfbat to the face in my opinion, or I see a very boring tournament meta consisting of Cryx and maybe Grymkin at the top and all the other factions struggling to do anything.
|
|
|
|
Post by c0deb1ue on Oct 6, 2017 10:53:35 GMT
For the record, and to be more helpful than our statistician friend: Type 1 errors occur when you incorrectly reject the Null hypothesis (ie. find an effect/correlation when there is none.) Type 2 errors occur when you incorrectly fail to reject the Null hypothesis (ie. find that there is no effect/correlation when there in fact is one.) Type 1 errors are generally considered more egregious in most fields of science. However, I have some issues with Professorlust's methodology. In particular, the way he's controlled for player skill seems...off. If winrate is the variable you're using to measure power, then using 'perfect winrate' as a proxy for player skill (and removing 'highly skilled players') is naturally going to have a circular effect on your findings. Not circular when the VIF is 1.2 or Lower. Additionally 6-0 players occurred on non 6-0 teams. So if we're going to assume that cryx is over powered, we also need assume that cryx not only over performed individually in matchups that Players can arrange, which they cannot do in standard SR, we also need to investigate whether any particular individual win, helped the team. This is because since matchups can be arranged, amy good matchup should hypothetically indicate that there were overall team benefits for matchup. Assuming every matchup is 50:50 in a format where teams can seek to avoid or least mitigate the impact of bad match ups is fallacious . However, as I repeatedly lamented, we don't know anything about the matchup process for each round. However, simply because we don't know the matchup process doesn't mean we get to ignore the matchup process. Our ignorance, in my opinion, does far too much to undermine the claim that Cryx is OP as opposed to my more nuanced Cryx did well but to assign blame for Cryx's performance to Cryx being OP at design level when there a number of factors which contribute to both individual and team performances. I really very much disagree with this. Cryx's performances at team level really can't be used as a measure of the faction's Opness. That just tells you how much their OPness/(or not) affects team performance, which is a completely different thing. Seeing as all their team results are determined by the individual results I see no reason to jump to team results and just blur over the more detailed data. As well as the incredibly unlikely chance that you can model team dynamics effectively to gain any real conclusions - theres like a million assumptions to be made. The individual match-up data showing that they won 70% is indicative enough of a skew. The team performances is a whole other aspect... I am just confused as to why this was your chosen outcome for cryx's OPness? This feels like a very belated way to try and reduce the obvious skew. Theres a lot of stats chat going on but the simplest statistic is already in your face. occam's razor - their win-rate was insane as a faction, they wiped the floor with practically all the factions except grymkin who unsurprisingly had the second best winrate due to being able to win vs cryx. Lets wait and see if anything changes but 70% is not a good stat for competitive games |
|
