| | | | | You are not authorized to post a reply. |
| | Author | Messages | |
Vrecknidj
Warlord
10425 Posts
    
United States
 | | 02/05/2006 10:05 AM |
| Chris' thread: 65 HP not as important as it used to be (http://www.maxminis.com/forums/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=14212) and especially Chad's reply to it has me wondering about the effect of the metagame on efficiency.
I've been testing the Efreeti again, and, it's looking more efficient now that Underdark is available. Sure, a pack of Gith Monks can take it down, but it's not a titan and so if someone playing a GAS band uses up its auto-crits on an Efreeti, that provides the LE player with some freedom from future worry in that same game.
For this piece, 65 hit points is a very important piece of its efficiency. It has some very nice spells, making it effective against anything not immune to fire or spells. And, with the same attacks as a Helmed Horror, but for even better damage, the Efreeti is a significant melee threat if used properly.
With its Large base, it can serve as an effective commander shield, and with its ability to fly, it can serve as a threat on maps with difficult terrain and pits.
The piece's cost is nicely between the Gauth and the Helmed Horror, and it seems to fit about perfectly there.
If it had fewer hp, fewer spells, a higher cost, a lower attack, less damage output, or required a spell or special ability to be used to gain flight, it wouldn't be efficient, perhaps not at all.
But, a significant reason the piece is efficient is because of the current metagame. Against a bunch of FBs or Orc Champs, the Efreeti isn't that efficient. But, against a Lawful-heavy meta, it's a very nice piece. It has little worry from Helmed Horrors (if it's used properly), and, again, with the right support and placement, it has little to fear from a Gith Monk band.
I've recently seen a rise in interest in the Gauth as well, telling me that it's efficiency is also tied to the metagame.
Some pieces might be metagame-independent in their efficiency, but I suspect that there aren't many.
What do you think?
Dave | |
Knowledge Arcana editor issues 5-9, Phoenix Lore Magazine editor, assistant editor for Rite Publishing;
My Trade Thread and My Reference Thread; Winner of WBC IV, IX and XIII; Rule #0: bshugg is always right! | |
|
Balduran I
Sergeant
404 Posts
| | 02/05/2006 12:56 PM |
| I think you’re confusing efficiency with individual game circumstances.
Efficiency is, arguably, absolute; the Clay Golem is more efficient than the Flesh Golem because, regardless of what your opponent has, there are both better attributes for the same points and better synergies more easily available to the Clay than to the Flesh.
If we say that efficiency is dependant on the metagame, then it ceases to have any meaning, really. Efficiency should refer to how… efficiently… the figure makes use of the points spent on it. If I screw up by misreading the metagame it doesn’t make any figure less (or more) efficient. If everyone at a tournament plays Dwarf Caver bands, and I bring my Orc band, it doesn’t mean that Orc Warriors are not efficient for their 3 points.
| |
| |
|
Toxic_Rat
Sergeant
745 Posts
Lehi, Utah, USA
| | 02/05/2006 1:10 PM |
| If efficiency is absolute, is there a formula for it? Is it possible to assign an index value to each piece that relates to efficiency?
Each piece individually would have some empirical number that would describe its value, other than the point cost. Although I think the point cost is supposed to reflect the "efficiency" of a piece, but that's another story. [:)] Really what we end up with is a two-fold calculation: the cost of the piece, and what that piece would add to the warband. This is, I think, what Vrecknidj is asking. Before the Gith Monk, who was talking about the Young Master? It was just another mostly forgotten piece that would see play in a theme band, but not much more.
Some pieces are tier-1 because they cause a shift in how the game is prepared for. Some become tier-1 because they follow on the coat-tails. Young Master/Gith Monk, Frenzied Berserker/Insp. Marshall, just to name a couple.
| |
Any time you try to make something idiot-proof, someone always goes out and invents a better idiot.
Champion of Siege Equipment | |
|
Balduran I
Sergeant
404 Posts
| | 02/05/2006 2:00 PM |
| Efficiency is not the only thing to take into consideration when building a force. Unless environment (a better term than "metagame" IMO), is taken into account the build may not perform as you expect. For that *situation* one could say that the band was less "efficient."
But why do that? It just muddies the water; efficiency in our context is the raw power of the build relative to other possibilities, and that derives from the efficient use of points relative to abilities of the individual figures. Regardless of environment.
Clarity is important. Having an important term like efficiency come to mean more than one thing is a recipe for confusion.
More later... must go play DDM. [:)] | |
| |
|
Vrecknidj
Warlord
10425 Posts
United States
| | 02/05/2006 6:57 PM |
| I appreciate what you're saying, Balduran I, but I think that efficiency cannot be an absolute concept (if by absolute you mean other-pieces-independent).
Consider: if a piece is thought of as efficient, say, because it has a valuable hp-to-cost ratio, then this is only an effective measure of efficiency when the metagame has pieces that cause X damage on a hit. For example, for a long time, 65 was a sweet spot for hp, especially for the mid-range-cost figures (i.e. non-fodder, non-tech, non-titan). But, there has been some mention of how this is no longer the case. So, whereas a 60-point piece or a 55-point piece might have been judged inefficient in one era, it might be judged as efficient in another.
Considering a similar point, if the Hill Giant Barbarian becomes popular, then since it does 40 damage to Medium creatures lacking DR, then 85 hit points might become the new sweet spot for Medium creatures without DR. (I don't see this happening, but if it did, it would support my point.)
Simply put, a piece's efficiency has to depend upon other pieces, because what we do with pieces is match them up against other pieces. The efficiency cannot not depend upon other pieces. And, since the field of possible pieces (and therefore possible combinations of pieces) changes with time (and the playing field changes, and the rules change, etc., etc.), the efficiency of a piece requires an analysis of the metagame.
Dave | |
Knowledge Arcana editor issues 5-9, Phoenix Lore Magazine editor, assistant editor for Rite Publishing;
My Trade Thread and My Reference Thread; Winner of WBC IV, IX and XIII; Rule #0: bshugg is always right! | |
|
Zaukrie
Underboss
2007 Posts
| | 02/05/2006 8:10 PM |
| I actually argued in another thread that since Kord and probably the hill giant and others do so much damage, that the break point is less important because it is so easily reached. That maaaaay make some low hp minis more effective because the high hp minis may not survive long anyway.
To your general question, I think the meta influences effectiveness greatly, but that efficiency is absolute. A mini can become more or less effective to a very large degree depending on what it faces, but efficiency is somewhat absolute. | |
Fastest dropping DCI ranking on record!
Champion of Juiblex | |
|
John05
Warrior
246 Posts
| | 02/05/2006 8:34 PM |
| I also think efficiency can't have an absolute value as it's currently defined:
Efficiency - The production of the desired effects or results with minimum waste of time, effort, or skill.
If everyone in your area uses Couatl all the time, it wouldn't be as productive to use Red Samurai as it would be to use an Orc Champion. If Couatl wasn't as popular, there wouldn't be as much wasted points (on the 5 fire melee damage or the 20 damage cone).
~John | |
| |
|
Balduran I
Sergeant
404 Posts
| | 02/05/2006 8:42 PM |
| Vrecknidj,
I appreciate your understanding and articulate presentation. You’re one of the gems of DDM discussion, so I’m not arguing just to be difficult. I really think something important is being presented here, not on a game analysis level but on the ability to do good analysis of the game. The only tool we really have is language, and the language used is critical to understanding and communication. That’s where I’m coming from.
The term efficient does compare a figure to other figures, but only other figures that could take its place in the warband.
The term you're looking for is appropriateness. A figure can be efficient, but not appropriate. As well, a figure can be appropriate but not efficient. For example, if you know you will face Orc Champions then the Dwarf Caver is perfectly appropriate. But the Caver is hardly efficient relative to other commanders available to LG. From the other angle, if the environment is Quick Strike then the LSD is simply not appropriate, though it is a very efficient (for its AC, save, offensive potential and survivability) figure in the game.
Efficiency is absolute, in that in any given warband there is one figure that will maximize the value for the points spent for that role and strategy. That warband (and by extension the figures in it), however, may not be appropriate to the environment. The metagame is part of, or as some use it is synonymous with, the environment.
I get where you’re coming from, and don’t actually disagree with the root of the premise – the metagame/environment for any given tournament is arguably the most important factor to take into consideration when building a warband. Especially with a collectable game, knowing that all players will not have all figs, and with the variation in scenarios available. But to use the term efficient to apply to how much power, of whatever type is needed (speed, survivability, offense, etc) relative to the environment makes the term much too vague. Literally *any * figure could be termed efficient, depending on what it’s facing and what scenario is being played. That makes conversation on a macro level difficult; if a term has multiple meanings then communication becomes difficult.
That’s why I’m arguing. Two terms are really needed, each with a specific meaning. Efficient is how powerful a figure (or entire warband) is in its role for the points. Appropriate is how useful a figure (or, again, an entire warband) is in the metagame/environment. | |
| |
|
jos1-1
Sergeant
829 Posts
| | 02/05/2006 8:43 PM |
| | and people play a lot of fyling rainbow snakes. | |
Poor student looking for minis =D | |
|
John05
Warrior
246 Posts
| | 02/05/2006 9:33 PM |
| "Efficient is how powerful a figure (or entire warband) is in its role for the points." ~Balduran I
But a figure is not powerful at all if it can't survive, period. I think your versions of "appropriateness" and "efficiency" are more closely related than you admit. Two different terms for them would be unnecessary and, I dare say, unwanted, because it would make it seem like there was a significant difference between the two where there was none.
How important is Armor Class? Well that depends on the other figures. How important is attack bonus? That also depends on the other figures.
You can't analyze a figure in a vacuum. Why was 65 hp considered a magic number in the first place? The environment favored it. Why was the Justice Archon considered an efficient piece? Because there were a lot of low AC, high damage figures crawling around. If most competitive figures were high AC, high attack, and low damage, would the JA still be efficient? No. It would be a WASTE to include her in a band when the Gith Monk does just as much damage, has higher AC, and much greater speed for about the same cost.
You can't judge efficiency without comparisons. By making comparisons, you're taking the environment into account. Thus, just like everything else,
Efficiency is Relative... not absolute.
If you insist on pushing your point, then let us know, right now, which is more efficient: Red Samurai or Orc Champion?
By your logic, this question has a definate answer because, according to you, efficiency is absolute.
~John | |
| |
|
Balduran I
Sergeant
404 Posts
| | 02/05/2006 9:59 PM |
| quote:
Originally posted by John05
Two different terms for them would be unnecessary and, I dare say, unwanted, because it would make it seem like there was a significant difference between the two where there was none.
Reread what I wrote. They’re not two different terms for the same thing.
Efficiency *is * in a vacuum. The best players know this. Unless you’re cheating you cannot *know* what you’re going to face, ie, what the metagame will *really* be. So how do you decide what to put in a band? By how efficient a piece is *regardless* of what it will face.
Then, and only then, does the best player say, “Hmmm… well, I *think* that there’ll be a lot of ______ at the tourney. So I’ll take out ‘x’ because it’s not appropriate, and put in ‘y’ because it is appropriate to gace _______.” Now, ‘y’ can easily not be as efficient as ‘x’, and the builder’s guess about what he’s going to face doesn’t make it any more efficient for his guess. Yet ‘y’ may be more appropriate. (Or it may not be… because the decision is indeed made in a vacuum. Again, you do not *know* what the metagame will be!)
I’m not sure why you’d say that language that clarifies would be unwanted. I’m not out “push a point,” I’m out to make sure everyone is speaking the same language.
BTW, Red Sam vs. Champ? They're both equally efficient. Both can have their efficiency vis-a-vis the other increased by adding in various other figs that augment them. Just because something is absolute doesn't mean there can't be ties. | |
| |
|
John05
Warrior
246 Posts
| | 02/05/2006 10:01 PM |
| Actually, since I'm eating right now, I will preemptively respond to what I think your response will be...
You might try responding that Orc Champion is more efficient at a specific role while Red Samurai is more efficient at another. I don't like that response because
First of all, it begins to sound like EVERY piece is efficient, because each one has it's own specific role. Goblin Skirmishers are more efficient than any other piece because it fills a role as a Snigglet more efficiently than any other figure. Justice Archons are efficient at countering a special group of minis (would we have known that if we were judging in a vacuum?). Hell, if in the distant future a commander was made that gave all Wrackspawns +10 speed, +20 damage, and +20 attack, Wrackspawns would be the most efficient pieces to accompany that commander. Right now, Fiendish T-Rexes are the most efficient doorstop, being a heavy but cheap (money-wise) figure... etc.
Second of all, the term by your definition is not very useful. "We should hire him boss. He's not very 'appropriate', but he's highly efficient for a highly specific role that we rarely need..."
But any way you look at it, even if we were to be generous and say that "every mini has a role to fill", we would still need to look at the metagame/environment to determine the "roles" and "efficiency" associated with fulfilling that role.
~John | |
| |
| Knight of the
Round Table
Thenameless
Warlord
11444 Posts
The Fortress of Solitude
| | 02/05/2006 10:04 PM |
| | Using Balduran's example, I think he would answer that the Orc Champion is more efficient. It's the piece most people would choose in a blind taste test (i.e. not knowing what they are going to face). Then, what he means about appropriateness is that if you know that a lot of fire users will be showing up, or you know that there will be a need to clear a lot of weak fodder, then the Red Samurai with its fire resistance and its breath weapon would be more appropriate to the situation. | |
Over 270 successful online DDM trades. | |
|
John05
Warrior
246 Posts
| | 02/05/2006 10:05 PM |
| quote:
Originally posted by Balduran I
Efficiency *is * in a vacuum. The best players know this. Unless you’re cheating you cannot *know* what you’re going to face, ie, what the metagame will *really* be. So how do you decide what to put in a band? By how efficient a piece is *regardless* of what it will face.
Suppose I didn't know the metagame at all, and that I was just starting... I would COMPARE my figures to each other to determine efficiency. I'm fairly sure you'd do the same.
How can you judge value without making any comparisons at all?
edit/added
For example, I open a case, and 90% of my figures were JAs. I believe that would affect my opinion on what I viewed as efficient and what wasn't. There are too many dimensions (level, damage, AC, AB, abilities, type, name...) to consider for me to just base my opinions on damage and HP.
I understand that the naive thing to do would be just to look at damage and HP, but I'd like to think most of us are wiser than that... a lot of us would consider other stats besides damage, point-cost, and HP. | |
| |
|
John05
Warrior
246 Posts
| | 02/05/2006 10:10 PM |
| quote:
Originally posted by Thenameless
Using Balduran's example, I think he would answer that the Orc Champion is more efficient. It's the piece most people would choose in a blind taste test (i.e. not knowing what they are going to face). Then, what he means about appropriateness is that if you know that a lot of fire users will be showing up, or you know that there will be a need to clear a lot of weak fodder, then the Red Samurai with its fire resistance and its breath weapon would be more appropriate to the situation.
In that case, the very least he would be doing, even if he had no other figures to compare, would be to compare the OC and the RS to each other. Thus, the efficiency is relative in this case.
Suppose we then compared the OC to a chaotic evil version of the Justice Archon. Would that then mean that the JA is more efficient? What if we then compared the JA to the RS? This element of rock-paper-scissors contradicts this idea of an absolute efficiency. What kind of multidimensional scale would we need for these relative values of efficiency? | |
| |
|
Knight of the
Round Table
Thenameless
Warlord
11444 Posts
The Fortress of Solitude
| | 02/05/2006 10:17 PM |
| Right. And if you compare the Red Samurai with the Orc Champion, most people would come to the conclusion the the Orc is the better, or more efficient, of the two.
You can't know exactly what's going to show up at a tournament, but you can make educated guesses. About a month after Angelfire was released, Chraals were showing up in numbers at local tournaments here in the Vancouver area. And, of course, the CE players dusted off their Red Samurais, replacing some or all of the Orc Champions in their warbands.
It's just mincing words, but I do believe that there are pieces more suited to an open tournament where just about anything can show up. And there are pieces that can break the backs of other warbands (Dwarf Caver, Justice Archon) without being great in a general sense. | |
Over 270 successful online DDM trades. | |
|
John05
Warrior
246 Posts
| | 02/05/2006 10:23 PM |
| quote:
Originally posted by Thenameless
Right. And if you compare the Red Samurai with the Orc Champion, most people would come to the conclusion the the Orc is the better, or more efficient, of the two.
And as I was saying, it's naive to base your judgments on damage and HP alone.
There's Level/save, attack, type, special abilities... etc...
You say "MOST people would come to the conclusion..."
Since when were ABSOLUTE concepts dependent on the relative opinions of people? I don't know about you, but when I first saw the OC and RS, I really couldn't tell which was more "efficient". | |
| |
|
Balduran I
Sergeant
404 Posts
| | 02/05/2006 10:23 PM |
| Perhaps absolute is the wrong word; I used it to put away the notion that a figures efficiency, in any sense that can be used when discussing which figures are "better" than which other figures, depends on what you're going to fight. It doesn't. A figure in its warband is efficient (or not) before any game is played. In that it's absolute.
Of course (!) figures match up differently against other figures. So what? With your mushy definition of "efficient" (how "good" it is in every concievable situation), the word has no meaning even in that context.
The way you use the word the LSD is the least "efficient" figure around - after all the TO can make the tourney Quickstrike. The Dwarf Caver is the most "efficient" commander around - you may face Orc Champs. The Chraal is not efficient at all; after all, I may face nothing but Pholarcs and Elf Pyromancers.
Where does that get the conversation, the analysis? Nowhere. Your foggy definition of "efficient" actually impedes analysis - any point can be countered with "If I face _____ it's efficient."
No... it isn't. It may be appropriate to the fight, but it's not efficient in any meaningful sense of the word. It may even be necessary - if you don't survive you lose - but again, that doesn't make it efficient. | |
| |
|
John05
Warrior
246 Posts
| | 02/05/2006 10:30 PM |
| quote:
Originally posted by Thenameless
It's just mincing words, but I do believe that there are pieces more suited to an open tournament where just about anything can show up. And there are pieces that can break the backs of other warbands (Dwarf Caver, Justice Archon) without being great in a general sense.
Just about anything can show up...
I'm sorry but that is not a good point. You don't play a game that you have no clue about. Generally, you'll have some understanding of the rules and environment before investing time and money into it.
Fine. Even going by that... Suppose I really didn't know many rules or the environment, I still wouldn't know which to pick, the OC or RS. What is the figure limit? What is the map size?
If the map was really small and crowded and the figure limit is 20 figures MIN, then a first turn Cone could easily win the game. The decision is not easy. | |
| |
|
John05
Warrior
246 Posts
| | 02/05/2006 10:36 PM |
| quote:
Originally posted by Balduran I
Perhaps absolute is the wrong word; I used it to put away the notion that a figures efficiency, in any sense that can be used when discussing which figures are "better" than which other figures, depends on what you're going to fight. It doesn't. A figure in its warband is efficient (or not) before any game is played. In that it's absolute.
Of course (!) figures match up differently against other figures. So what? With your mushy definition of "efficient" (how "good" it is in every concievable situation), the word has no meaning even in that context.
The way you use the word the LSD is the least "efficient" figure around - after all the TO can make the tourney Quickstrike. The Dwarf Caver is the most "efficient" commander around - you may face Orc Champs. The Chraal is not efficient at all; after all, I may face nothing but Pholarcs and Elf Pyromancers.
Where does that get the conversation, the analysis? Nowhere. Your foggy definition of "efficient" actually impedes analysis - any point can be countered with "If I face _____ it's efficient."
No... it isn't. It may be appropriate to the fight, but it's not efficient in any meaningful sense of the word. It may even be necessary - if you don't survive you lose - but again, that doesn't make it efficient.
No. I believe your definition was the one impeding analysis.
"Efficient is how powerful a figure (or entire warband) is in its role for the points. Appropriate is how useful a figure (or, again, an entire warband) is in the metagame/environment."~ Balduran I
Your definition requires specifications. Every time one assigns an efficiency value to a figure, one must also specify the "role" that the efficiency value applies to. This adds infinite dimensions and complexity to a term we've (so far) used quite casually.
The commonly accepted definition that the rest of us are defending is the one that relies on relativity. Your definition makes Einstein turn in his grave. [:o)] | |
| |
|
Balduran I
Sergeant
404 Posts
| | 02/05/2006 10:40 PM |
| John,
Wow. For lots of words you haven't rebutted anything I've said. I've said my piece - anything else would be repeating. I suggest you go back and read it again, and address what I actually said. If you can. If you can't, just keep throwing insults. | |
| |
|
John05
Warrior
246 Posts
| | 02/05/2006 10:50 PM |
| I honestly don't see how I was being offensive. I knew the conversation was starting to sound too serious, and even tried lightening the mood by making a stupid Einstein reference... but I didn't think the conversation was that distressing to you. (Then again, I am a very poor "people person" so I could be wrong.)
I will reread what you wrote, because I apparently misquoted you or misinterpreted you. Please do the same for me because it's very distressing to me that you'd think I was deliberately attacking you. I sincerely hope you merely misinterpreted my attacking your argument as attacking you directly...
Admittedly, I am very interested/zealous about this topic because I have a strong belief that qualities and other intangibles are rarely absolute. | |
| |
|
elder_basilisk
Sergeant
410 Posts
| | 02/05/2006 11:06 PM |
| Perhaps it would be best to be more systematic in defining the terms we can use to describe minis.
Efficiency, as far as I can tell, is how good a mini is for its cost.
Unfortunately, that's about the limit of the terms I've seen generally used. We could, however, adopt a few more:
Effectiveness: how well a mini will perform its given role in the expected metagame. I believe this is what Balduran termed "appropriateness."
To use a few examples here:
It seems to be the received wisdom that the ogre ravager is a very efficient piece. It's reasonably speedy, has a good AC for CE, some good defensive abilities (fire resistance), a good save, lots of hit points, great damage and a smite at a moderate attack bonus (though it's a low attack bonus for the Ogre Rav's role). It is not, however, always an effective piece. In a metagame that is heavy on chraals, duergar champs, and justice archons, the ogre ravager's weaknesses are highlighted and even some of its strengths (the high damage) become drawbacks.
Non-epic Rikka is another good example of a piece that is efficient but isn't always effective. Especially in lawful good (via Regdar or the Coatl), there aren't many figures that can combine SR, DR, speed 8, fly, 75hp, a good cure spell, and a 20 damage attack at a good attack bonus and at 31 points she's packed it all into a very efficient package. However, her relatively low level makes it hard to keep her on the board with anything less than a top tier commander. The half-orc paladin, cleric of Yondalla, or village priest just aren't good enough to keep her around. In bands that rely upon a commander 3 (or worse yet, a commander 0), the less efficient justice archon is more effective. | |
| |
|
Balduran I
Sergeant
404 Posts
| | 02/05/2006 11:06 PM |
| No, I thought you were insulting me. My bad. Sorry.
Anyway, scratch the word absolute completely. That has apparently gotten in the way of what I'm trying to say. Figs only are efficient in comparison with other figs - it's where that comparison takes place that's at issue to me.
You really can't see the advantage to the distinquishing between how efficient a fig is in terms of what it costs to put in your band and how appropriate a figure may be to a given environment?
The benefit to my mind is clear; one can distinguish between what's a good use of points vs bad use in abso... [:)] er, I mean, well... in your back room preparing for the tourney, *then* look to see how appropriate it will be in what you think you'll face. (It's what good players do already, IMO) It's a nessecary distinction, in my mind, to make sure we know what exactly we're referring to when we say "efficient" and also to be able to analyse the different environments out there. | |
| |
|
John05
Warrior
246 Posts
| | 02/05/2006 11:14 PM |
| That makes more sense.
In that case, your "efficiency" would account for a smaller environment: your collection and knowledge (rules, maps, etc).
"Effectiveness/appropriateness" takes into account the much larger environment, including the collections, thoughts, and (perhaps even) faults of others. Perhaps even society itself!
But in both cases, comparisons are still made, and efficiency still isn't absolute (in the strictest sense) since our collections are finite and will remain so (until production ceases)...
hmmm... That does make much more sense because in that case, figures like Drider don't have an indeterminate efficiency value because we can at least get an idea of what other figures there are to abuse Transposition with. [^]
~John | |
| |
|
Kissmykiester
Sergeant
525 Posts
| | 02/05/2006 11:40 PM |
| quote:
Originally posted by John05
That makes more sense.
In that case, your "efficiency" would account for a smaller environment: your collection and knowledge (rules, maps, etc). quote:
Micro
quote:
"Effectiveness/appropriateness" takes into account the much larger environment, including the collections, thoughts, and (perhaps even) faults of others. Perhaps even society itself!
~John
Macro
That a good metaphor to use?
| |
Vassal Tournament Constructed Group#
1 & 2-Champion
"You are, what you do, when it counts".
-------------------------
Sucessful Trade - Pan(2), Lexander (2) Trilistria (1) | |
|
John05
Warrior
246 Posts
| | 02/05/2006 11:49 PM |
| "Micro" and "macro" can be confused for "micromanagement" and "macromanagement" which both are very much applicable to the game.
Perhaps the smaller environment is, you mean to call, a "microverse" while the larger one is a "macroverse"? [:)]
~John | |
| |
|
Wrackspawn
ChristopherGroves
Warlord
6093 Posts
| | 02/06/2006 1:07 AM |
| Just want to chime in and thank you guys (John / Balduran) for keeping this on-topic and civil. The past few weeks there have been far too many threads reaching a point of ... contention ... that required attention. Anyway, mucho thanks.
Now on to the topic. I have an opinion that I've shared a number of times in discussions (usually chat/live and not here), but I'm going to restate it here as it involves this concept of "efficiency" and "appropriateness" and really the in-general usefulness of many figures. Maybe some of this is heresy, we'll see. Understand that this reflects the better players playing the top-end with the intent to WIN tournaments ... not just playing for fun. We all bring out the funky bands from time to time and HOPE for a win, but if we had to go to nationals and REALLY wanted to win, this opinion below applies.
- There are some natural breakpoints in the game. A figure that meets some number of these becomes "good enough".
- Some figures do this without excessive situationally-dependent abilities (like DR, resistances, breath weapons, whatever). As such, they are "good enough to play in most situations".This versatility makes figures like the Eye of Gruumsh a great all-around figure
- The specific, individual point-costs for a figure do not determine the underlying efficiency or usefulness of a figure. Most of the building-blocks for a warband for ALL factions fit into a handful of basic point-ranges. Too be playable it merely has to be in this point range.Does it matter if the Efreeti is 42 points? How about 39 or 45? What if the Chraal was 40 points ...?
- Whether or not a figure DOES see play is based on a number of factors, chief among them how that figure can fit into a band and build upon synergies.I think the Justicator is good enough ... but until there's a good set of units with which it can combine it will be the bridesmaid and not the bride
- Secondarily, a figure may see increased play if the expected environment (metagame - both bands, terrain, etc.) is a good matchup. In this case you are trading pure-efficiency with an expected situational advantage. | |
Triangle DDM Skirmish Group | My Email | 45-ish trades and counting | Stuff for Trade
* * * Show your brother some love and click here * * * | |
|
Balduran I
Sergeant
404 Posts
| | 02/06/2006 1:16 AM |
| The elder puts it perfectly. Effective is a perfect word for it. Not least because it starts with an "E" and goes so well with Efficient. [:)]
Efficiency: A measure of the potential power of a figure relative to its cost and other figures that could be substituted for it.
Effectiveness: A measure of the actual power of a figure relative to the environment and metagame.
Those short defs don't tell it all, but are good for shorthand. | |
| |
|
LeClaire
Warrior
225 Posts
| | 02/06/2006 5:56 AM |
| quote:
Some pieces might be metagame-independent in their efficiency, but I suspect that there aren't many.
What do you think?
Dave
While we aren’t taking sides, I have to agree with Dave and Balduran on this. Or at least with what I think they are saying. As I was reading the thread I began to hurry to the end to chime in with my two cents only to find that Balduran summed up Efficiency and Effectiveness quite well, with a bit of help from Elder Basilisk. Effectiveness was the term that sprang to my mind as well. I guess you have to get up pretty late in the night to beat these guys to the punch. I fear that my views are a mere rehash of things said before, but here goes:
I have one small quibble. I think that Efficiency can be absolutely calculated, but only relatively. If there were only one miniature in existence is it efficient? Yes and no. It is both the most efficient and the least efficient one in creation. You must have something to compare it to or the conversation is moot. The area with the most confusion is when we throw several values together (HP, AC, saves, to hit, etc) and make a definative claim that A is more efficient than B. Read Aesoph Darkfable’s analysis on tech figures:
http://www.maxminis.com/forums/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=12280
There he places arbitrary (but quite reasonable) values on certain properties and builds a two axis graph to form a third (summery) axis. Now there is a nice piece of work that goes into sufficient initial depth with an easy to understand summery. And he shows his work. He explains his rational rationale. This is quite rare as many just state their opinion, or at most hang it on a terse, subjective statement.
We have to define our terms if we wish to avoid confusion. English isn’t everyone’s (myself included) first language.
The meaning of "efficient" that I thought we were using is an aggregate of several different factors. You put them all together, shake ‘em all up, and pour out a gut-felt result. This value differs slightly for most people. Some folks take the word of those they respect, and others trust their own instincts more. That’s all fine, but I’m getting away from the point. Take for example a creatures HP/cost ratio. This is an absolute formula that you can apply to any piece. 4:1 is better than 1.2:1, right? If everything else were the same, which would you pick? But you throw in variables like the lower HP creature having DR, SR, energy resists, with Conceal, and suddenly the answer is much more blurry. Dave (Vrecknigj) and I had an interesting discussion about Celestial Dire Badgers vs. Celestial Black Bears. One is better in a stand-up fight, while the other is better at running (for tile points). Which is more efficient depends on the role you are going to assign it. A Beastmaster can choose the Wolf or the Timber Wolf. One is a better creature than the other for exactly the same points. Since he’s ignoring both Wild and Difficult 20, the answer is easy, but if the wolves were minions instead…
Point for point can give you an exact, absolute value that you use to compare: The Efficiency
Other factors will impact on the playability, usefulness and overall utility: The Effectiveness | |
It is I, LeClaire!
So we have to champion something? Alright, I pick the mighty Flumph! | |
|
Urban Druid
Warrior
253 Posts
| | 02/06/2006 8:45 AM |
| I like the idea of absolute efficiency. Efficiency is, after all, the bulk of my profession IRL, so I feel that I understand the concept.
The only problem that I have with it in terms of miniatures is this: in order to evalute the efficiency of anything , one must first identify its role or purpose. If an industrial manufacturing machine isn't terribly cost-effective at creating its intended product, some enterprising engineer could still modify it slightly so as to turn it into a terribly efficient fruit-juicer to supplement his breakfast in the morning. Now, does that make it "efficient?"
Now, that rather silly example was just my attempt to say that a miniature must have its proper role determined before deciding it's efficiency; otherwise the word is meaningless. I usually sum up the roles of miniatures in these catagories: commander, melee hitter, melee support (fodder falls into this category), tech, and tile-grabbers.
Once you've decided on a figure's role, it's efficiency becomes an empirical, absolute "number" (at least, for me it does). | |
*This post was recorded before a live studio audience* | |
|
XAos
Underboss
2395 Posts
London
| | 02/06/2006 9:31 AM |
| quote:
Originally posted by Urban Druid
The only problem that I have with it in terms of miniatures is this: in order to evalute the efficiency of anything , one must first identify its role or purpose.
The "Role" of a mini is strongly dependant on it's special abilities/spells etc...
e.g. a Mini with Legions shield of faith or Snakes swiftness is almost certainly a tech/support piece. A mini with no special abilities can only be used as a beatstik or blocker.
My method of dealing with this is to evaluate the minis efficiency in various roles, and then use the maximum of the seperate values calculated.
e.g. The Rikka can be used to Heal or as a fast beatstik. It's almost impossible to do both with her, any turn she heals is a turn she doesn't do 20 damage to the enemy. | |
Don't worry about the current metagame. It doesn't matter if it's ugly, bad, or the best ever. In 2 years time, set rotation will ban everything. | |
|
Ack
Underboss
1476 Posts
| | 02/06/2006 11:14 AM |
| this would be perfect for an article. An excellent topic, long enough to allow you to fully delve into the thoughts.. but something that could be summarized after a fashion.
Yeah - this deserves a great reply with alot of thought - and it will come this afternoon while I am "working".. but for now I submit to you one of the most efficient pieces in the game
Nothic - LE, 10 Points, ugly lil mini. But.. he has a wealth of nifty stuff
First - he's Level 5. for 10 points. As Paris says "thats hot"
Second - 40 Hit points. 40. Thats 4:1 HP:Cost! Unreal value is something more than 5 points
Third - 15 AC.. so Fodder isnt going to be killing him.. anytime soon at least.
Fourth - +7 Attack. for 5 points, sure.. but +7 is nothing to sneeze at really
Fifth - Blindsight.. okay. thats useful
Sixth - Gaze Attack - DC16 for 5 points. It might be range 6, but he's an abberation so Dark Naga can bump that to DC 18.
He's incredibly EFFICIENT
But why doesnt he see play more often if he is such a good value? Cause Efficiency isnt the only factor we need to consider. More on this later. Im hungry and I want to see some replies before I continue down this path | |
Minis... Serious Business
Completed Trades (18 ) | Pending Trades (0)
Ebay seller to Avoid –Fantasy_Quest_Dist
| |
|
Vrecknidj
Warlord
10425 Posts
United States
| | 02/06/2006 11:18 AM |
| Thanks to everyone for their contributions. One thing for sure that I've come away with from this thread, so far, is that the particular use of words matters a great deal and really helps determine whether we know whether we agree or disagree on a point.
The words: absolute, relative, efficient, effective, etc., all seemed to have slightly different meanings to several of us, and that caused most of the problems (I think).
But, it's nice to see how things have come around. I agree, by the way, that there are different ways of classifying the usefulness of a piece (I figured "usefulness" would be a nice neutral term for now).
I see at least these three issues:
1) How useful a piece is in the current metagame.
2) How powerful a piece is compared to other pieces of the same cost.
3) How powerful a piece is when combined with other pieces.
My first comment on these would be for (2). I've discovered what many others have discovered: that just because two pieces have the same cost, it doesn't mean they're equally useful in the skirmish game. There are lots of good examples. Consider all the 3-point pieces, consider the 34-point commanders, consider the 39-point pieces. Chris' point that some pieces would be "worth it" if they cost a few more points helps tell this tale.
My next comment would be to Balduran's latest comment about the difference between efficiency and effectiveness. This is a fine distinction. By his terminology, I'd have to change the thread's title to "Effectiveness." What he defined as "effectiveness" is what I originally meant by "efficiency." As far as I'm concerned, it's a matter of semantics, and I'm happy to embrace someone else's terminology.
My primary concern was to consider pieces relative to the game as it changes, for 200-point, Constructed events. I didn't say this, and it might have helped.
In Limited play, things can be much different. For example, at last year's GenCon maxminis event, I pulled a Silver Sorcerer and a Chuul. Against the highly variable field of such an event, those two paid off nicely. A blurred Chuul is a pain in the butt in that kind of event. But, barring some substantial changes to the metagame, you aren't going to see these two pieces showing up in many Constructed events (though I did consider the Chuul for the warband building challenge).
Dave | |
Knowledge Arcana editor issues 5-9, Phoenix Lore Magazine editor, assistant editor for Rite Publishing;
My Trade Thread and My Reference Thread; Winner of WBC IV, IX and XIII; Rule #0: bshugg is always right! | |
|
John05
Warrior
246 Posts
| | 02/06/2006 12:29 PM |
| Saying that something is "absolute"... relatively... is an oxymoron.
Since we are starting to get folks who have professional experience in dealing with efficiency, perhaps we can get some input as to how they calculate efficiency?
In physics, it would be a ratio of work to input energy.
In economics and business, I believe it is a ratio of product to cost.
I don't see how "product" can be measured "absolutely" in this case. It depends still on a fluid environment. Many figures such as Crow Shaman, Couatl, Drider, etc have efficiency values almost completely dependent on the environment. I understand that some figures don't depend as much on others but I still think they aren's completely free from the web of interdependencies. | |
| |
|
John05
Warrior
246 Posts
| | 02/06/2006 12:35 PM |
| quote:
Originally posted by Urban Druid
The only problem that I have with it in terms of miniatures is this: in order to evalute the efficiency of anything , one must first identify its role or purpose.
That's why we steer away from that route. Instead of defining highly specific roles and efficiency values to each role:
1. This mini is the best at helping with flanks!
2. This mini is the best at wasting points!
3. This mini is the scariest looking to newbs!
4. ...
instead, we define a universal role for all minis: To help me Win in my next X games.
That way, we have a more standard and singular form of efficiency to even talk about.
Of course, this again blurs the line between "efficiency" and "usefulness/effectiveness/appropriateness". So I ask again: are they really so different? Is there a way to define "efficiency" such that it is actually "absolute"? (keeping in mind that "absolute" is practically an antonym of "conditional" and "relative") | |
| |
|
LeClaire
Warrior
225 Posts
| | 02/06/2006 1:08 PM |
| @ Ack: I happen to really like the Nothic and have indeed put him into bands. Just because the common wisdom doesn’t embrace the little freak, doesn’t mean that I don’t.
@ John05: Of course it’s an oxymoron. It was also meant to be taken lightly. I thought that I explained it sufficiently that for an individual piece, you can derive a quantifiable ratio from certain statistics, but that this ratio is meaningless without comparison.
4 HP per point of cost is a good ratio, but you only know that if you compare it to the other minis. If everything else were 5 to 1 and up, then it would be a bad ratio. If everything else were between 3.8 and 4.1 to 1, then it would be an average ratio. Hence, you have an absolute number, which must be viewed against other mini’s to determine the relative value.
Am I making any sense? Maybe if I sleep on it I’ll be better able to communicate the thoughts buzzing around in my tired brain. | |
It is I, LeClaire!
So we have to champion something? Alright, I pick the mighty Flumph! | |
|
nycfarmkid
Underboss
1210 Posts
Wadsworth, OH
| |
Balduran I
Sergeant
404 Posts
| | 02/06/2006 1:17 PM |
| quote:
Originally posted by John05
quote:
Originally posted by Urban Druid
The only problem that I have with it in terms of miniatures is this: in order to evalute the efficiency of anything , one must first identify its role or purpose.
That's why we steer away from that route. Instead of defining highly specific roles and efficiency values to each role:
1. This mini is the best at wasting points!
2. This mini is the scariest looking to newbs!
3. ...
instead, we define a universal role for all minis: To help me Win in my next X games.
That way, we have a more standard and singular form of efficiency to even talk about.
Of course, this again blurs the line between "efficiency" and "usefulness/effectiveness/appropriateness". So I ask again: are they really so different? Is there a way to define "efficiency" such that it is actually "absolute"? (keeping in mind that "absolute" is practically an antonym of "conditional" and "relative")
Ok, to turn it back at you (in the best possible discussion sense, not attacking).
How does it further discussion – about figs, not this talk about talk - to define a “universal role – winning” to a figure? If you do want to talk about specific figure’s efficiency, using your definition, how would you discuss the relative merits of the Healer, the Dwarf Phalanx Fighter and the Large Silver Dragon? Please put together a few lines of a meaningful discussion of their efficiency using your definition (and no fair saying they’re not comparable – your definition is a *universal* role.)
In answer to your question, yes, they’re different, as posts in this thread make clear. Make no mistake, they’re not terms from on high. Nothing inevitable about the distinction between Efficiency and Effectiveness in discussion. So yes, you can “blur” it if you choose. But at the end of the day, why? Do you really not see the utility of the distinction? You really think that dozens of people talking about how good and bad figures are using as their base “if it helps me win it’s efficient” is a better conversation than breaking down the process of evaluation into its logical components? (Which the Efficient/Effective divide fulfills to a “t” – it’s just putting names on what good players do naturally when putting together their warbands.)
BTW, scratch “absolute” from your posts. The conversation has moved beyond it.[:)] | |
| |
|
Balduran I
Sergeant
404 Posts
| | 02/06/2006 1:43 PM |
| quote:
Originally posted by Ack
this would be perfect for an article. An excellent topic, long enough to allow you to fully delve into the thoughts.. but something that could be summarized after a fashion.
Yeah - this deserves a great reply with alot of thought - and it will come this afternoon while I am "working".. but for now I submit to you one of the most efficient pieces in the game
Nothic - LE, 10 Points, ugly lil mini. But.. he has a wealth of nifty stuff
First - he's Level 5. for 10 points. As Paris says "thats hot"
Second - 40 Hit points. 40. Thats 4:1 HP:Cost! Unreal value is something more than 5 points
Third - 15 AC.. so Fodder isnt going to be killing him.. anytime soon at least.
Fourth - +7 Attack. for 5 points, sure.. but +7 is nothing to sneeze at really
Fifth - Blindsight.. okay. thats useful
Sixth - Gaze Attack - DC16 for 5 points. It might be range 6, but he's an abberation so Dark Naga can bump that to DC 18.
He's incredibly EFFICIENT
But why doesnt he see play more often if he is such a good value? Cause Efficiency isnt the only factor we need to consider. More on this later. Im hungry and I want to see some replies before I continue down this path
Excellent example.
The Nothic is very efficient. But in the 200/12 environment not effective. If you’ve got the choice between 2 figs and 6 figs for the last 20 points you’ll go with the 6, because to be effective a warband mazimises activations. The Nothic is *not* effective in any role except being a temporary shield or distraction – it's not fast enough to be a grabber, its damage output it too low for a DD and it’s survivability is a function of staying away from the big hitters. At the end of the day three 3 po |
|
|
|
|
|