thats 302 more warriors on the smaller side =(5.07 %) and they only cost a dollar .
this comparison is done because it shows the bell curve of the warriors that are over the magical sz 15 " i suck line " vs the warriors along the same portion on the bottom of the bell curve .
again ill take this over what I'm getting from the dark arena
average size 11.8
so the team sheets are or were most likely generated along the same lines as the replacement rollups , so what my point the same as its always been .
that
1 based on skill break points there are to many large rollups
you can change that to to many shit large rollups if you want it is just
semantics .
2. that because this method of getting warriors costs less than half of what the dark arena costs the the program to generate the arena replacement rollups is broken . my opinion is still the same its broken because there are to many larger warriors that no one will run .
and there probably is a Small advantage in size on the team sheets as well but again its just semantics , my gut feeling was that there was an advantage this data shows one but its not significant enough to consider it gospel . based only on the number of warriors .
but looking at it ill take this over the dark arena even if it was not less than half the cost to get warriors this way .
one last comparison
tiny warriors 3-6 =887 7.76 percent thats means i spend 100 dollars on team sheets i get almost 8 size 3-6
average size warriors 7-14 = 7739 = 67.5 percent of them wow !
larg penalized dorks 15-21 -2824= 24.66 percent
so with al lthis said i sure would like to see this distribution from the dark arena instead of what i am getting
and yes you can say i have just been extreemy lucky across 2290 team sheets to get that many little and average size warriors , all i know is for years i have not gotten it from the dark arena , which is why i buy team sheets
guardian
_________________ im guardian who the f... are you !.
Woody Grandmaster Poster
Joined: Nov 01, 2005
Posts: 989
Location: Lake Powell
Posted:
Tue Oct 31, 2006 8:58 pm
guardian wrote:
well i was loathe to do this but i broke down and did it I really didn't want to know
so with al lthis said i sure would like to see this distribution from the dark arena instead of what i am getting
and yes you can say i have just been extreemy lucky across 2290 team sheets to get that many little and average size warriors , all i know is for years i have not gotten it from the dark arena , which is why i buy team sheets
guardian
Hmmm...
I have been too busy looking at the nuts and bolts to get the big picture.
Basically, you're saying:
-Team sheets give "better" warriors than the dark arena.
-Team sheets are cheaper per warrior than the dark arena.
-So what is everyone so upset about?
The Consortium ArchMaster Poster
Joined: Nov 23, 2002
Posts: 10145
Location: on the golf course, in the garden, reading, traveling, and now Consulting
Posted:
Wed Nov 01, 2006 1:49 am
We are not so sure, like you, there is anything to be upset about. Our understanding is that some managers gravitate to buying "new teams', like Guardian, because the sheets are somewhat better. The discussion on the table is
"if arena replacements were better, would/could that enhance/improve (in volume) arena play?"
Most say "yes". (Certainly everyone would like better warrior rollups.) If the masses agree, then there is value to asking/begging/demanding a change for the good of the players and for RSI.
While some of us disagree on the "fairness" (our word) of the rollups from the DA/graduation, it matters not, if we all accept the premise /objective in red above.
_________________ The Consortium: Crapmaster 2013, Crapgiver 2014; 1213 ADM graduates (40+ manager IDs) including 176K+ fights and 118K+ wins plus 4 teams with 1500+ wins (Animal Farm DM11 @2085; Bulldogs DM11 @ 1976; Lenpros DM30 @ 1792; Fandils DM46 @1727
The Consortium ArchMaster Poster
Joined: Nov 23, 2002
Posts: 10145
Location: on the golf course, in the garden, reading, traveling, and now Consulting
Posted:
Wed Nov 01, 2006 3:04 am
Guardian, thank you for all the time and effort and data you have provided on this topic. Efforts like your will definitely make the game better. We truly appreciate it.
_________________ The Consortium: Crapmaster 2013, Crapgiver 2014; 1213 ADM graduates (40+ manager IDs) including 176K+ fights and 118K+ wins plus 4 teams with 1500+ wins (Animal Farm DM11 @2085; Bulldogs DM11 @ 1976; Lenpros DM30 @ 1792; Fandils DM46 @1727
guardian Advanced Master Poster
Joined: Nov 05, 2002
Posts: 334
Posted:
Wed Nov 01, 2006 4:40 pm
Woody wrote:
guardian wrote:
well i was loathe to do this but i broke down and did it I really didn't want to know
so with al lthis said i sure would like to see this distribution from the dark arena instead of what i am getting
and yes you can say i have just been extreemy lucky across 2290 team sheets to get that many little and average size warriors , all i know is for years i have not gotten it from the dark arena , which is why i buy team sheets
guardian
Hmmm...
I have been too busy looking at the nuts and bolts to get the big picture.
Basically, you're saying:
-Team sheets give "better" warriors than the dark arena.
-Team sheets are cheaper per warrior than the dark arena.
-So what is everyone so upset about?
big picture jeez its only in like 15 posts that the point is the dark arena sucks compared to buying team sheets so onone builds teams via the dark arena .
and the thought is ( posted above sveral times )
that if we got better warriors out of the dark arena/arena replacements , perhaps there would be more activity in regualr arenas and less activity in arena 82 and the like .
guardian
_________________ im guardian who the f... are you !.
Reaper Advanced Expert Poster
Joined: Sep 16, 2006
Posts: 109
Location: Philadelphia, PA
Posted:
Wed Nov 01, 2006 5:18 pm
guardian wrote:
Woody wrote:
guardian wrote:
well i was loathe to do this but i broke down and did it I really didn't want to know
so with al lthis said i sure would like to see this distribution from the dark arena instead of what i am getting
and yes you can say i have just been extreemy lucky across 2290 team sheets to get that many little and average size warriors , all i know is for years i have not gotten it from the dark arena , which is why i buy team sheets
guardian
Hmmm...
I have been too busy looking at the nuts and bolts to get the big picture.
Basically, you're saying:
-Team sheets give "better" warriors than the dark arena.
-Team sheets are cheaper per warrior than the dark arena.
-So what is everyone so upset about?
big picture jeez its only in like 15 posts that the point is the dark arena sucks compared to buying team sheets so onone builds teams via the dark arena .
and the thought is ( posted above sveral times )
that if we got better warriors out of the dark arena/arena replacements , perhaps there would be more activity in regualr arenas and less activity in arena 82 and the like .
guardian
It seems that the great RU controversy of 06 is masquerading as several issues at once.
Issue #1
agreed and done...
The current system does not financially incentify arena play ($$$$).
That is the issue...(for me clearly opinions like mathematicians vary)....
I am not sure if changing the probability to get a SZ 3-7 warrior is going to mean @#$#@ to a new player. They have alot to learn anyway. What you want is for new players to feel competitive and meet/interact with other players. I think this improves the likelihood that someone will keep playing.
Issue #2
To me the issue of buying rollups by the pound to get the perfect guy is a different topic. Clearly, RSI is in this to make $$$. It is also critical to <somehow> balance this behavior off as it clearly has a negative game play aspect. It discourages the growth of the game through new players. Don't have answers for this, but changing the probability of getting smaller warriors won't change this.
Issue #3
Do better aka smaller warriors do anything to attract arena players? Don't know really.... Clearly, if I think that I have a RU that will outclass everyone else, I will run him. If everyone has warriors on this higher level will I notice any change in my day to day???? Again don't know... I tend to think a new player is going to get his or her clock cleaned for the first few turns no matter what you give them for for RUs?? What it does do is give them hope that some day.... long in the future... they could compete on the ADM and Primus levels... Which may help.... Of course they would have to know what that is, but....
R
Nomad ArchMaster Poster
Joined: Jun 27, 2006
Posts: 2227
Location: Fargo, ND
Posted:
Wed Nov 01, 2006 5:51 pm
Wow - that is a lot of data Gardian went through - and more team sheets than I can imagine ever seeing in many lifetimes.
Based on what has been in this thread it seems to be the consensus that DA and graduation replacements do not generally meet the quality standards that the guardian demonstrated from his team sheets. Right?
Ok - here's the impact - and it isn't just on new players. I am a smaller manager - I run two teams full time and have only seen 4 team role-ups in my life. (And despite a long layoff I started playing on turn one of arena 10, so it does cover a long time.) I already feel at a huge disadvantage in tournaments compared to those who only focus on that, but I can deal with that because it is the nature of the game - if you focus on the tournies then you ought to out-perform those of us who do not. However, if in addition to your larger financial resources, sandbagging, award bonused warriors, and what ever else, I now find myself also confronting managers that routinely get better replacements than I do (Mine will all be coming from DA or graduation) on a per-replacement basis, well, why bother?
At that point I might as well give up arena play - which for me is probably the same thing as saying giving up the game. This game needs all of us and can't afford to lose anyone who loves the game for whatever reason.
Let me be clear - I am not complaining about those who focus their play in other ways than I do (tourney managers) - to each their own. However, I do want to be able to be competitive in my arenas.
This really doesn't address what I think the original issue was - would better replacements bring people back to the arenas, but it is an additional issue. On that point, by the way, I'd just as soon see you keep your sandbaggers in 82.
Joined: Jun 27, 2006
Posts: 2227
Location: Fargo, ND
Posted:
Wed Nov 01, 2006 5:54 pm
In case it wasn't clear - I suspect this means I might very well support something that improved DA replacements - or at least made them equal to what the team sheets spit out.
To me the issue of buying rollups by the pound to get the perfect guy is a different topic. Clearly, RSI is in this to make $$$. It is also critical to <somehow> balance this behavior off as it clearly has a negative game play aspect. It discourages the growth of the game through new players. Don't have answers for this, but changing the probability of getting smaller warriors won't change this.
Issue #3
Do better aka smaller warriors do anything to attract arena players? Don't know really.... Clearly, if I think that I have a RU that will outclass everyone else, I will run him. If everyone has warriors on this higher level will I notice any change in my day to day???? Again don't know... I tend to think a new player is going to get his or her clock cleaned for the first few turns no matter what you give them for for RUs?? What it does do is give them hope that some day.... long in the future... they could compete on the ADM and Primus levels... Which may help.... Of course they would have to know what that is, but....
R
2 qnd 3 ar ethe same issue and it is semantics ,
better smaller whatever
i used the smaller analagy becasue of the huge disadvantage you are at at sz 15 plus becasue the hitpoints damage rating bonus you get there does not adeuquetly compensate the warrior for the penalties to defense and parry ( personally it should have gotten programmed in reverse smaller better defense , bigger better parry . but that is just opinion .
and clearly it will make a difference becasue i am telling you if it was fixed i will run in arenas's more regularly and even if i am the only one who does so it makes a difference , a smal lone but it is in fact a difference , and i am betting it would make a difference to some other people as well .
guardian
_________________ im guardian who the f... are you !.
Reaper Advanced Expert Poster
Joined: Sep 16, 2006
Posts: 109
Location: Philadelphia, PA
Posted:
Wed Nov 01, 2006 6:41 pm
Guardian - I agree with you. On Issue 1 you have my vote. Make a DA and a Rollup the same ($$$$ and quality-wise) and call it a day. - R
Sorry if I pissed you off... just reading forums and drinking whiskey...
guardian Advanced Master Poster
Joined: Nov 05, 2002
Posts: 334
Posted:
Wed Nov 01, 2006 7:38 pm
nomad
dont misunderstand the data
the replacements are genrally only slightly better from team sheets , the real issue is it costs you twice as much money and takes a hlee of a lot longer to get decent rollups with ahaving to wait and all .
and its not fair that it does , tourney managers can always buy more rollups arena mangers have to wai t especially those on a limited budget and those mangers are the ones hurt the most by the disparity
secretly though this entire thread is just about me wanting to get more warriors through the dark arena oops did i say that out loud ?
guardian
_________________ im guardian who the f... are you !.
Woody Grandmaster Poster
Joined: Nov 01, 2005
Posts: 989
Location: Lake Powell
Posted:
Wed Nov 01, 2006 8:53 pm
The Consortium wrote:
"if arena replacements were better, would/could that enhance/improve (in volume) arena play?"
Here's an idea:
If you graduate a warrior from basic, and he has at least 20 arena fights, the replacement for your graduate is an 87 pointer.
This would:
-Increase arena participation
-Suck off some the the challenger sandbaggers back into the arena
-Increase the freshmen tourney participation
-Level the playing field some at the rook/app/init tourneys
-Reduce the problems associated with the bigger rollups
This would not:
-Affect the competitiveness at the higher levels
-Require any code changes, rollup database changes
It would be difficult for anyone to severely unbalance the rookies tourney by a flood of 87 pointers. If they could, then they've earned it by their contributions to the arena part of the game.
Woody Grandmaster Poster
Joined: Nov 01, 2005
Posts: 989
Location: Lake Powell
Posted:
Wed Nov 01, 2006 10:49 pm
guardian wrote:
well i was loathe to do this but i broke down and did it I really didn't want to know
this data is parsed from 2290 team sheets (really it is )
= 11450 warriors on these team sheets the sizes break out as
In English: It is more than 90% certain that the rollup pool you drew from has no size bias in the 7-17 range.
pipthetroll Advanced Master Poster
Joined: Nov 04, 2002
Posts: 447
Location: In my underwear, in front of my computer
Posted:
Thu Nov 02, 2006 4:10 am
Woody wrote:
The size attribute on your rollups comes from a biased source (big surprise). The confidence interval is more than (.999).
In English: it is more than 99.9% sure that the pool you drew from is biased.
Whats with the big surprise crack? Theres no surprise at all--the team sheets are a static pool, theres somewhere between 150-250(could be more now), then they repeat.
How many possible team sheets could there be if it was random? In the billions most likely. How big is the sample we have? 250ish with repeats? We will never see 99.99% of the possible team sheets. A sample of team sheets will always be biased.
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum