Jump to content
Orkimedes

Invader League Update - Round Robin data and Elims Unit Mix

Recommended Posts

5 minutes ago, TalkPolite said:

Quality is quality though. You should try him! 

Oh don’t get me wrong, I fully want to play a Boba-Bossk LLC list; I just don’t have any illusions that his being popular (as are many new units) makes him particularly good. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Derrault said:

Popularity isn’t commensurate with quality. 

Not always, but these players all had to make it through the crucible of the Round Robin stage, and they likely did it with similar lists.  They aren't just using Bossk because they think he's cool.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
52 minutes ago, Orkimedes said:

Not always, but these players all had to make it through the crucible of the Round Robin stage, and they likely did it with similar lists.  They aren't just using Bossk because they think he's cool.

You will not convince him. He literally needs you to show him a rigorous and peer-reviewed study before he will accept any fact that doesn't fit into his current opinion. I wish I was exaggerating.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, arnoldrew said:

You will not convince him. He literally needs you to show him a rigorous and peer-reviewed study before he will accept any fact that doesn't fit into his current opinion. I wish I was exaggerating.

So true.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, arnoldrew said:

You will not convince him. He literally needs you to show him a rigorous and peer-reviewed study before he will accept any fact that doesn't fit into his current opinion. I wish I was exaggerating.

Well I need peer review before I will even accept my current opinion as valid. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, Orkimedes said:

Not always, but these players all had to make it through the crucible of the Round Robin stage, and they likely did it with similar lists.  They aren't just using Bossk because they think he's cool.

It may be possible, but you don’t have any data (it’s certainly not to be found on the site you linked) as to what the seed lists were. Without that, you have no way of knowing if the results are concomitant with the start.

Because if 50% of entrants brought Bossk, and 50% of finalists to join the 32 have Bossk...well that’s a non event. If 75% brought Bossk, but only 50% made it to the stage where you actually started tracking, that’s bad. If only 25% brought Bossk, but 50% of the final stage have him, that’s presumably good...again, caveats as ‘within the context of the matchups those players faced’. 

12 hours ago, arnoldrew said:

You will not convince him. He literally needs you to show him a rigorous and peer-reviewed study before he will accept any fact that doesn't fit into his current opinion. I wish I was exaggerating.

I don’t draw conclusions without evidence.

You might be comfortable making things up, I’m not.

4 hours ago, Senjius said:

So true.

It’s not an opinion, unless...are you seriously trying to say that popularity = quality?? 

3 hours ago, TauntaunScout said:

Well I need peer review before I will even accept my current opinion as valid. 

The difference being I’m not advancing an opinion, just remaining agnostic in the absence of evidence. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
10 minutes ago, Derrault said:

It may be possible, but you don’t have any data (it’s certainly not to be found on the site you linked) as to what the seed lists were. Without that, you have no way of knowing if the results are concomitant with the start.

I don’t know what concomitant means, but I can say from personal experience that I used Bossk in all five of my Round Robin games, and I find him to be excellent.

That said, you should definitely try him yourself and draw your own conclusions.

Generally I just tend to chafe a little bit when folks dismiss the time, practice, effort and testing that goes into unit and upgrade decisions for tourney lists.

Just because good and successful players are using a given unit doesn’t necessarily mean that unit is optimal, but it’s still a valid and useful data point.

Edited by Orkimedes

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Orkimedes said:

I don’t know what concomitant means, but I can say from personal experience that I used Bossk in all five of my Round Robin games, and I find him to be excellent.

That said, you should definitely try him yourself and draw your own conclusions.

Generally I just tend to chafe a little bit when folks dismiss the time, practice, effort and testing that goes into unit and upgrade decisions for tourney lists.

Just because good and successful players are using a given unit doesn’t necessarily mean that unit is optimal, but it’s still a valid and useful data point.

It just means a phenomenon that naturally accompanies something.
i.e. When we only have a conclusion (which lists got into the 32), we do not know if it accords with the premises (the lists were competing).

As I wrote, I plan to use Bossk, because I think it'll be fun to run a bounty hunter team.

Don't take it personally, this isn't about you. It is about using logic to make valid inferences and recognizing the limitations of the available data.

That players are using a given unit is a data point meaning 'what' exactly? It's hard to say without knowing if those players reflect more, less, or the same proportion of players who opted to use Bossk at all.

Also, I'd strongly caution against conflating success or list selection with being a good player.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Derrault said:

Also, I'd strongly caution against conflating success or list selection with being a good player.

So would you suggest we conflate failure with skilled players?  Or poor list-building with skill in a game that is, by definition, partially about list-building?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, Jedhead said:

So would you suggest we conflate failure with skilled players?  Or poor list-building with skill in a game that is, by definition, partially about list-building?

I would suggest that people with ability or without can get to 5-0, and some even do it by cheating.

List building in this game isn’t a meaningful exercise. It’s not what your bring to the board, it’s how you use it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Derrault said:

I would suggest that people with ability or without can get to 5-0, and some even do it by cheating.

List building in this game isn’t a meaningful exercise. It’s not what your bring to the board, it’s how you use it.

There’s definitely a basic understanding that needs to be reached before you can start sweeping major events. Both things need to be taken into account. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, TalkPolite said:

There’s definitely a basic understanding that needs to be reached before you can start sweeping major events. Both things need to be taken into account. 

Basic understanding (whatever that conveys) is typically apart from Good. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Right, but what you said above is people without ability can go and 5-0 at top events. That’s simply not true. As you go up every round, you start to learn the little strategies that differentiate a veteran and a newer player. Things like Turn 0 strategies, activation order, terrain scoping, and command card timing to name a few are learned abilities that you need to make it into the higher echelons of this game. 

Please, trust me on this. After running and playing in the larger events (to include worlds next month), building a list that makes sense to the player (not whatever you found on the internet) and learning how to play it well are critical skills to success. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, TalkPolite said:

Right, but what you said above is people without ability can go and 5-0 at top events. That’s simply not true. As you go up every round, you start to learn the little strategies that differentiate a veteran and a newer player. Things like Turn 0 strategies, activation order, terrain scoping, and command card timing to name a few are learned abilities that you need to make it into the higher echelons of this game. 

Please, trust me on this. After running and playing in the larger events (to include worlds next month), building a list that makes sense to the player (not whatever you found on the internet) and learning how to play it well are critical skills to success. 

No, I said: “I'd strongly caution against conflating success or list selection with being a good player.”

The first was to note that winning games isn’t in and of itself evidence of being a good player. And that extends beyond the obvious, that cheaters also appear to be good players, until they get caught.

I know that there’s a lot of room for nuanced thought games and planning, but to quote Moltke: No plan of operations extends with any certainty beyond the first contact with the main hostile force.

The second part, list selection: If that is truly important, than it wasn’t the player who won, it was the units. If the player is good, they can win regardless of the composition, by adapting their play to the circumstances.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, Derrault said:

The second part, list selection: If that is truly important, than it wasn’t the player who won, it was the units. If the player is good, they can win regardless of the composition, by adapting their play to the circumstances.

 

I'm sorry, but this is just silly.  To say that list selection is completely unimportant is ridiculous.

That is like saying a good coach will always win even if given bad players in, say, a basketball game. A good coach (or a good player in Legion) can improve a bad team or a bad list, but when given a good team or a good list they will be even more effective. Some units are definitely better than others, making some lists better than others as well.

Thought experiment: if what you are saying is true, and units (lists) don't matter, then I could build a terrible, horrible, very bad list and an optimized list, and it would be a fair game. Would you take my bad list I intentionally mangled and play me and call that fair?  If list-building really didn't matter, you would think it was fair, but I suspect nobody would really call that a fair game, not even you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Derrault said:

The second part, list selection: If that is truly important, than it wasn’t the player who won, it was the units. If the player is good, they can win regardless of the composition, by adapting their play to the circumstances.

 

That is just not true. List selection is truly important. And I am not saying "Best list wins". I am saying that if you go to a tournament with a list out of the 50% of efficiency you are going down hard vesus the top tier players with a 95% list.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

It’s definitely not easy to go undefeated at a major tournament these days.  And Invader league has been the largest and most international so far.

Should you just photo copy the lists of top players and expect good results?  Absolutely not.

But saying those lists aren’t useful data as a starting point doesn’t make any sense to me and minimizes all the testing and practice that went into crafting them.

Edited by Orkimedes

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Jedhead
"I'm sorry, but this is just silly.  To say that list selection is completely unimportant is ridiculous. 

That is like saying a good coach will always win even if given bad players in, say, a basketball game. A good coach (or a good player in Legion) can improve a bad team or a bad list, but when given a good team or a good list they will be even more effective. Some units are definitely better than others, making some lists better than others as well."

Good coaches know how to maximize players and find a path to victory, bad coaches don't. (i.e. Bill Belichick is the epitome of adaptation and using players that other coaches had written off to devastating effect).

And yes, the list selection is essentially irrelevent to if a player is good or not. If they're a good player, they can find a path to victory, if they're bad, then they can't adapt their play choices based on what they have and what the opponent brings.

"Thought experiment: if what you are saying is true, and units (lists) don't matter, then I could build a terrible, horrible, very bad list and an optimized list, and it would be a fair game. Would you take my bad list I intentionally mangled and play me and call that fair?  If list-building really didn't matter, you would think it was fair, but I suspect nobody would really call that a fair game, not even you."

What do you consider a 'bad' but legal list anyway? 
Why is it you don't think said list has a path to victory?

By all means, if you want to start a thread with a list and do one of those 'How do you win?' scenarios, sure, I'd be happy to entertain that.

@Senjius
"That is just not true. List selection is truly important. And I am not saying "Best list wins". I am saying that if you go to a tournament with a list out of the 50% of efficiency you are going down hard vesus the top tier players with a 95% list."

What you mean by 50% efficiency and 95%?

And, if you're not arguing that best list wins, but instead that a "50%" list loses vs a "95%" list (not sure how that's different than saying 'best list wins'); how do you reconcile when players with non-bog-standard lists (i.e. not 3 sniper strike teams; 6 corps; Commander(S)) win? They actually have the better list and everyone should be emulating them to win? 

Or, reverse that, when someone who chooses the "95%" list loses to the "50%" list?

@Orkimedes
"It’s definitely not easy to go undefeated at a major tournament these days.  And Invader league has been the largest and most international so far. 

Should you just photo copy the lists of top players and expect good results?  Absolutely not. 

But saying those lists aren’t useful data as a starting point doesn’t make any sense to me and minimizes all the testing and practice that went into crafting them."

I don't think anyone said it was easy, only possible, plausible even. Given that players only play against those in their division (rather than 'everyone'), it's entirely possible to be matched up against other players of similar skill and come out on top. There's no guarantee that an opponent who won their previous game was actually the better player out of that match up.

@Senjius seemed to be suggesting that taking something 'other' than the top player list could expect bad results.

I think those lists are useful only in terms of predicting future list composition and deciding the easiest path to countering that, or for preformulating strategies on how to exploit the innate weaknesses of the previously used lists.

To the specific question of 'Does Bossk's presence in 50% of remaining Imperial lists from those that entered into Invader League mean Bossk is more useful than other uses of those points?'; well, the answer is: Not enough information exists to ascertain that. 

That's the point: Without knowing the starting point (what the starting pool of lists were), we can't know if Bossk is being represented disproportionately or not.

Sure, you can navel gaze and guess, but what's the point of doing that instead of just collecting the relevant data in the first place?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Derrault said:

What you mean by 50% efficiency and 95%?

And, if you're not arguing that best list wins, but instead that a "50%" list loses vs a "95%" list (not sure how that's different than saying 'best list wins'); how do you reconcile when players with non-bog-standard lists (i.e. not 3 sniper strike teams; 6 corps; Commander(S)) win? They actually have the better list and everyone should be emulating them to win? 

Or, reverse that, when someone who chooses the "95%" list loses to the "50%" list?

 

@Senjius seemed to be suggesting that taking something 'other' than the top player list could expect bad results.

I think those lists are useful only in terms of predicting future list composition and deciding the easiest path to countering that, or for preformulating strategies on how to exploit the innate weaknesses of the previously used lists.

To the specific question of 'Does Bossk's presence in 50% of remaining Imperial lists from those that entered into Invader League mean Bossk is more useful than other uses of those points?'; well, the answer is: Not enough information exists to ascertain that. 

That's the point: Without knowing the starting point (what the starting pool of lists were), we can't know if Bossk is being represented disproportionately or not.

Sure, you can navel gaze and guess, but what's the point of doing that instead of just collecting the relevant data in the first place?

First of all, please make some effort to use the quote tool correctly so everyone can read your post easily. Take a look at everyone else´  s posts please.

Second, do not distort what I have told you. You said that listbuilding does not matter. I told you that was not true. Listbuilding is important. Can you win with a bad list? Yes. Can you approach with a mediocre list to a big tournament with top tier players with top tier lists (or at least people with your level of skills)  and expect to win? Fast answer, no. Maybe you can get some wins due to dumb luck or big mistakes from your rival (even top tier players made mistakes sometimes) but at the end of the day, you are going to be mopped a lot. I am sorry to bring it to you but listbuilding is **** important in this game. Is it better to be a good player than having a good list? Of course. But when you arrive to a BIG tournament you need to be good and to have a decent list at least.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...