zeffid
Junior Strategist
Posts: 163
|
Post by zeffid on Sept 29, 2017 15:41:54 GMT
Anyone know what scenarios were played in the different rounds? Trying to get the WTC games into the battle reporter and cant find that info anywere PM me if still needed
|
|
zeffid
Junior Strategist
Posts: 163
|
Post by zeffid on Sept 29, 2017 15:43:35 GMT
Besides avoiding triggering Sacrifice, there are some Arcana that are simply powerful no matter what. Labyrinth, Ruin, and Pandemonium aren't really ones that can be avoided and can have huge implications on the outcome of your turn. Additionally, being a limited release faction actually helps their power level I think. Since PP was obligated to give them tools to deal with a variety of problems and by virtue of having less models to choose from, those tools are more often than not found together. Lists can be made that ask a variety of questions and/or provide a variety of answers, which is powerful in a tournament list pair. Are there glaring holes in my thinking that I'm missing? This is admittedly all anecdotal. I think you've got it pretty mu ch right. Grymkin aren't too powerful, it's just their power is too concentrated by necessity of being a small faction. Dreamer has crazy result of 12 out of 13 games in last 3 rounds (expect this to be mostly equal skill level). Grymkin might be OK. Dreamer is not.
|
|
|
Post by flamigant on Sept 29, 2017 18:18:05 GMT
And now caster v faction:
Caster that were droped in 5+ games against cryx and how they did...
Caster v Faction / Games / Results / Win% Asphyxious 1 - Cryx / 9 / 3 / 33% Axis 1 - Cryx / 11 / 4 / 36% Butcher 3 - Cryx / 8 / 2 / 25% Coven 1 - Cryx / 7 / 4 / 57% Deneghra 1 - Cryx / 18 / 10 / 56% Deneghra 2 - Cryx / 6 / 2 / 33% Haley 2 - Cryx / 6 / 1 / 17% Issyria 1 - Cryx / 20 / 3 / 15% Nemo 3 - Cryx / 8 / 4 / 50% Ossrum 1 - Cryx / 6 / 2 / 33% Severius 2 - Cryx / 9 / 2 / 22% Vladimir 1 - Cryx / 8 / 3 / 38% Wurmwood 1 - Cryx / 15 / 0 / 0%
So the best anti cryx faction is cryx itself? Cry me a river...
|
|
Ganso
Junior Strategist
Posts: 932
|
Post by Ganso on Oct 1, 2017 19:53:05 GMT
I think you've got it pretty mu ch right. Grymkin aren't too powerful, it's just their power is too concentrated by necessity of being a small faction. Dreamer has crazy result of 12 out of 13 games in last 3 rounds (expect this to be mostly equal skill level). Grymkin might be OK. Dreamer is not. Was this in the winner's bracket or in the losing bracket? In other words, what was the record of the people and teams that lost to Dreamer up to that point?
|
|
|
Post by jisidro on Oct 1, 2017 21:44:28 GMT
When USA, Poland and Australia were on the "loser" bracket by round two I'm not sure what you mean?
|
|
Deller
Junior Strategist
I’m on a Boat
Posts: 605
|
Post by Deller on Oct 1, 2017 22:00:46 GMT
And now caster v faction:
Caster that were droped in 5+ games against cryx and how they did...
Caster v Faction / Games / Results / Win% Asphyxious 1 - Cryx / 9 / 3 / 33% Axis 1 - Cryx / 11 / 4 / 36% Butcher 3 - Cryx / 8 / 2 / 25% Coven 1 - Cryx / 7 / 4 / 57% Deneghra 1 - Cryx / 18 / 10 / 56% Deneghra 2 - Cryx / 6 / 2 / 33% Haley 2 - Cryx / 6 / 1 / 17% Issyria 1 - Cryx / 20 / 3 / 15% Nemo 3 - Cryx / 8 / 4 / 50% Ossrum 1 - Cryx / 6 / 2 / 33% Severius 2 - Cryx / 9 / 2 / 22% Vladimir 1 - Cryx / 8 / 3 / 38% Wurmwood 1 - Cryx / 15 / 0 / 0%
So the best anti cryx faction is cryx itself? Cry me a river... As it turns out having 5 Hellfire casters and a Hellmouth caster opens up a lot of options into the current Cryx power couple.
|
|
Ganso
Junior Strategist
Posts: 932
|
Post by Ganso on Oct 2, 2017 4:55:00 GMT
When USA, Poland and Australia were on the "loser" bracket by round two I'm not sure what you mean? I'm saying that certain casters perform better in certain brackets. Case and point, Mk2 Lillith_2 was rarely seen in the top four, but middle of the pack players fell prey to her constantly. I understand people see WTC and think that all 320 players are the WM/H equivalent of Olympic level athletes, but the truth is that many of them are just regular guys that like to play and wanted no more than game and drink, and that also their dominance of the game is no better than your average Joe in the local FLGS. At least that was my experience as a judge in past years. So yea, I think it's safe to assume that certain casters perform better in certain skill brackets, which why terms like "skill floor" and "skill ceiling" exists.
|
|
|
Post by Ianassa on Oct 2, 2017 12:07:04 GMT
You can clearly see that lots of teams seemed to have dedicated Cryx drops and that they didn't pull off
|
|
zeffid
Junior Strategist
Posts: 163
|
Post by zeffid on Oct 2, 2017 14:05:34 GMT
Dreamer has crazy result of 12 out of 13 games in last 3 rounds (expect this to be mostly equal skill level). Grymkin might be OK. Dreamer is not. Was this in the winner's bracket or in the losing bracket? In other words, what was the record of the people and teams that lost to Dreamer up to that point? Sorry, not something I want to spend my time on. The generic 75% win percentage for Dreamer in 33 games should be a good proof as well. And the total games played is 27 for the 4 other Grymkin casters with a resonable 48% win percentage.
|
|
|
Post by professorlust on Oct 2, 2017 23:15:25 GMT
Rough Reports
First set of tests: Did Playing as Cryx have a significant effect on outcomes?
Chi-squared tests:
Team Wins Any Given Round, no Significant difference win or lose if you play cryx
Team Wins, significant difference if you play cryx.
Bivariate Correlations:
Team Wins Any Given Round:no significant relationship between winning and playing cryx
Total Team Wins at WTC: .317** Pearson's R with P<.001 for Playing Cryx and total team wins. which implies a mild but still significant positive relationship between playing cryx and a team's total wins
Regression:
Team Wins Any Given Round: no significant explanation of variance in wins if you play cryx Total Team Wins at WTC: .006** R^2 p<.001 if you play cryx with a B of .252 at p<.000. Which is to say that .6% of the variance in a Teams Wins at WTC can be explained by knowing if you were playing cryx or not and that playing cryx had positive relationship with team wins.
So this is intriguing and I decided to investigate further, namely to find out if there confounding factors which make cryx have no impact on a given round but an impact on the team's fortunes overall.
Second Round of Tests: Did Playing as Cryx have significant impact if we also control for Player "skill" by introducing Players total wins at WTC
Skipping Chi-Squared
Partial Correlations (not bivariate): I switched to Partial Correlations for this allow us to explore relationships in the context of other variables.
Team Win Any Given Round: no significant relationship Total Team Wins at WTC: -.072 R at p<.002 if you play cryx.
This indicates that if we control for the assumption that whatever faction good players play, they will play well, Playing Cryx actually had a very minor but still significant negative relationship on a Teams Wins at the WTC.
Regression:
Team Win Any Given Round: .032 R^2 p<.001 for the model as a whole with the Playing as Cryx was not a significant contributor while Personal Wins had a B .62 which was significant at the p<.000 level. Which is to say that 3.2% of the variance in whether a team won or lost can be attributed to a players relative skill when we also factor in whether or not they play cryx.T
Total Team Wins at WTC: .191 R^2 p<.000 for the model as a whole with the Playing as Cryx had a B -.229 with a p<.002 while Personal Wins had a B .379 which was significant at the p<.000 level.
This indicates that we can explain 19.1% of the variance in team wins based on knowing whether a person played cryx and their total wins at the WTC. We can also say with a mild amount of certainty that playing Cryx has a negative relationship with a teams total wins when controlling for player skill, and that Player skill had a positive relationship on a Teams Wins at the WTC
|
|
|
Post by jisidro on Oct 3, 2017 0:24:13 GMT
You seem to be saying that the winning team gimped themselves by playing 2 Cryx?
|
|
Grimolf
Junior Strategist
Posts: 246
|
Post by Grimolf on Oct 3, 2017 0:33:35 GMT
Rough Reports First set of tests: Did Playing as Cryx have a significant effect on outcomes? Chi-squared tests: Team Wins Any Given Round, no Significant difference win or lose if you play cryx Team Wins, significant difference if you play cryx. Bivariate Correlations: Team Wins Any Given Round:no significant relationship between winning and playing cryx Total Team Wins at WTC: .317** Pearson's R with P<.001 for Playing Cryx and total team wins. which implies a mild but still significant positive relationship between playing cryx and a team's total wins Regression: Team Wins Any Given Round: no significant explanation of variance in wins if you play cryx Total Team Wins at WTC: .006** R^2 p<.001 if you play cryx with a B of .252 at p<.000. Which is to say that .6% of the variance in a Teams Wins at WTC can be explained by knowing if you were playing cryx or not and that playing cryx had positive relationship with team wins. So this is intriguing and I decided to investigate further, namely to find out if there confounding factors which make cryx have no impact on a given round but an impact on the team's fortunes overall. Second Round of Tests: Did Playing as Cryx have significant impact if we also control for Player "skill" by introducing Players total wins at WTC Skipping Chi-Squared Partial Correlations (not bivariate): I switched to Partial Correlations for this allow us to explore relationships in the context of other variables. Team Win Any Given Round: no significant relationship Total Team Wins at WTC: -.072 R at p<.002 if you play cryx. This indicates that if we control for the assumption that whatever faction good players play, they will play well, Playing Cryx actually had a very minor but still significant negative relationship on a Teams Wins at the WTC. Regression: Team Win Any Given Round: .032 R^2 p<.001 for the model as a whole with the Playing as Cryx was not a significant contributor while Personal Wins had a B .62 which was significant at the p<.000 level. Which is to say that 3.2% of the variance in whether a team won or lost can be attributed to a players relative skill when we also factor in whether or not they play cryx.T Total Team Wins at WTC: .191 R^2 p<.000 for the model as a whole with the Playing as Cryx had a B -.229 with a p<.002 while Personal Wins had a B .379 which was significant at the p<.000 level. This indicates that we can explain 19.1% of the variance in team wins based on knowing whether a person played cryx and their total wins at the WTC. We can also say with a mild amount of certainty that playing Cryx has a negative relationship with a teams total wins when controlling for player skill, and that Player skill had a positive relationship on a Teams Wins at the WTC Uhhhhhhh... If you could you put that into Swahili, I might have a better chance of understanding what you are saying. So, do we like Cryx? Or, do we not like Cryx? Or, is the evidence unclear? Make it easy for me!
|
|
|
Post by professorlust on Oct 3, 2017 0:50:19 GMT
You seem to be saying that the winning team gimped themselves by playing 2 Cryx? No, my very rough and loose language to the contrary. Any statistical analysis refers to the field as a whole, not any particular team. Moreover, I've not yet to date aggregated the data in ways to control for having two cryx players. At this point, my playing as cryx variable could best be expressed as playing cryx on team with at least one cryx player. Separating out whether 2 cryx players created an advantage is still TBD. What I am saying in the first set of analysis is that having at least One cryx player made no statistically difference for a team winning any round but that having at least one cryx player had a positive relationship with the Total Round Wins a team earned at the WTC. I am also saying that when we control fior players "skill" by proxy of their individual match wins that the impact of a team having at least one cryx player inverts the relationship between that variable and a eams total Rd Wins. Note, I did this in part because about half of all 6-0 players used Cryx. I wanted to test the hypothesis that "skill" might have been a confounding factor.
|
|
|
Post by professorlust on Oct 3, 2017 1:01:48 GMT
Rough Reports First set of tests: Did Playing as Cryx have a significant effect on outcomes? Chi-squared tests: Team Wins Any Given Round, no Significant difference win or lose if you play cryx Team Wins, significant difference if you play cryx. Bivariate Correlations: Team Wins Any Given Round:no significant relationship between winning and playing cryx Total Team Wins at WTC: .317** Pearson's R with P<.001 for Playing Cryx and total team wins. which implies a mild but still significant positive relationship between playing cryx and a team's total wins Regression: Team Wins Any Given Round: no significant explanation of variance in wins if you play cryx Total Team Wins at WTC: .006** R^2 p<.001 if you play cryx with a B of .252 at p<.000. Which is to say that .6% of the variance in a Teams Wins at WTC can be explained by knowing if you were playing cryx or not and that playing cryx had positive relationship with team wins. So this is intriguing and I decided to investigate further, namely to find out if there confounding factors which make cryx have no impact on a given round but an impact on the team's fortunes overall. Second Round of Tests: Did Playing as Cryx have significant impact if we also control for Player "skill" by introducing Players total wins at WTC Skipping Chi-Squared Partial Correlations (not bivariate): I switched to Partial Correlations for this allow us to explore relationships in the context of other variables. Team Win Any Given Round: no significant relationship Total Team Wins at WTC: -.072 R at p<.002 if you play cryx. This indicates that if we control for the assumption that whatever faction good players play, they will play well, Playing Cryx actually had a very minor but still significant negative relationship on a Teams Wins at the WTC. Regression: Team Win Any Given Round: .032 R^2 p<.001 for the model as a whole with the Playing as Cryx was not a significant contributor while Personal Wins had a B .62 which was significant at the p<.000 level. Which is to say that 3.2% of the variance in whether a team won or lost can be attributed to a players relative skill when we also factor in whether or not they play cryx.T Total Team Wins at WTC: .191 R^2 p<.000 for the model as a whole with the Playing as Cryx had a B -.229 with a p<.002 while Personal Wins had a B .379 which was significant at the p<.000 level. This indicates that we can explain 19.1% of the variance in team wins based on knowing whether a person played cryx and their total wins at the WTC. We can also say with a mild amount of certainty that playing Cryx has a negative relationship with a teams total wins when controlling for player skill, and that Player skill had a positive relationship on a Teams Wins at the WTC Uhhhhhhh... If you could you put that into Swahili, I might have a better chance of understanding what you are saying. So, do we like Cryx? Or, do we not like Cryx? Or, is the evidence unclear? Make it easy for me! Cryx in isolation looks potentially unbalanced but contextualized there a number of confounding factors
|
|
zich
Junior Strategist
Posts: 690
|
Post by zich on Oct 3, 2017 7:43:11 GMT
Just to make sure I am not misunderstanding you: You count a lot of Cryx players going 6:0 as a factor against Cryx being OP?
|
|