| | | | | You are not authorized to post a reply. |
| | Author | Messages | |
Dagni
Sergeant
870 Posts
    
 | | 02/06/2006 3:25 PM |
| No, the Nothic isn't all that efficient. The notable stat left off? Damage. He's somewhat efficient, but doesn't compare at all to a figure like the Ogre Ravager, which is much more efficient.
-----
I guess I'll try to avoid commenting on a lot of the individual posts that I agreed or disagreed with, and simply state my opinion as best as I can.
I agree with Balduran that metagame effectiveness shouldn't be confused with efficiency. Assuming that a warband's efficiency is entirely unrelated to the other figures in the game (I don't agree with that, but I'm getting ahead of myself), then efficiency could be called "absolute", or "in a vacuum". What seems to be tripping people up is that obviously comparing efficiency is going to be related to whatever you're comparing!
Introducing a new figure that is *exactly* the Ogre Ravager's stats, except with a point cost of 3, not 38, doesn't change the efficiency of any existing minis or warbands. However, since we always say things like "piece X is efficient" - well, of course that's relative. That's all based upon comparisons, if a new piece X has efficiency of '3', we won't know what that means until we hear that the Orc Champion's efficiency is only '2.7'. Wow, piece X must be efficient!
However, I don't *quite* think efficiency is independent of the metagame. Add 10 to *every* AC in the entire game. The Thaskor's *effectiveness* would still depend on whether the opponent was running, say, Gauths versus running LSD . . . but the Thaskor would unquestionably be a more efficient mini than the near useless Ogre Ravager.
Here's the important corellary: a new set doesn't really change the range of viable attack bonuses, ACs, hit points, commander ratings, etc - or not by a very significant amount.
A second questionable area is the value - in a vacuum - of something like Fire resistance. Obviously it's metagame dependant. However, I think of the Couatl's commander effect as something that adds to his efficiency. In other words, when facing nothing but Orc Champions in a particular metagame, I consider that something making a useful ability ineffective, rather than the other way, where when facing Helmed Horrors it's making a useless ability effective. But, at other times, I intentionally do it the other way. When I talk about the efficiency of the Chraal, I often completely ignore three of his disadvantages: non-magic damage, cold damage, and double damage Fire. Each of those are so specific, they really have to be evaluated at a later step, the full metagame evaluation. I usually try to use the term 'pure efficiency' when ignoring an 'all-or-none' stat like: DR5, elemental damage/resistance, non-magic damage, most immunities, elemental vlunerabilities. So I guess it's that the Couatl's ability is so clearly useful is so many metagames, that I rarely evaluate him based upon 'pure' efficiency.
So I think that our view of efficiency is intended to be metagame independant. For exactly the reason someone said: we don't know what we'll face. Then effectiveness is kinda recursive: as much as possible, I try to look at a creature's effectiveness versus any and all solid warbands and creatures. The aggregate sum of those effectiveness evaluations (typically ignoring outliers) is a metagame-tinted view of that creature's effectiveness. But we approximate that evaluation first by having a mental idea of what a low, typical, or high AC looks like. Same with damage, hit points, attack bonus. We generally call conclusions based upon that first evaluation step the creature's "efficiency".
A new set doesn't really change these numbers much. A low ac is still 10-15, a high ac is still 20-25. High damage is still 20-30, low damage 10 or less. Our brain, with good reason, calls the expected change in actual warbands a metagame shift.
- Dagni | |
Proud member of the GRUUMSH fan club! | |
|
Dagni
Sergeant
870 Posts
| | 02/06/2006 3:45 PM |
| quote:
Originally posted by ChristopherGroves
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".
Ugh. I'm so strongly opposed to the concept of 'natural breakpoints'. At best, these are rules that codify what has been found through experience, at worst they could be wrong. In either case, they could be completely off if used to evaluate any new figure, that comes out after the breakpoint has been accepted. The most commonly referred to one: the 65 hp breakpoint, is at best an explanation for why the game developers overcosted so many 60 hp creatures. Or one of the reasons, anyway. Well, rather, the truth within the concept is that 65 hit points is almost as good as about 75 or 80. There isn't a linear progression: 10 hp isn't twice as good as 5, 65 hp is more than 65/60 times better than 60 hp.
All breakpoints are is something like a cheat-sheet, a way of remembering or codifying what numbers tend to end up being seen in competitive minis.
Again using the 65 hp one as an example: if you go back to the time when this was commonly accepted, (as opposed to now, when it's being questioned), and introduce just one mini, it's not exactly hard to introduce a melee fighter with 45-60 hp, that is efficient enough to compete in tier one play. In really casual evaluation, I don't think the Xendrik quite manages, but he's sure not far off. A Xendrik that does 10 damage per swing I imagine would work, however. Another good example is the Bugbear Footpad: so many times I've wanted to use this efficient fighter. However, I don't think he's quite as efficient as I'd like. Very close though. Also, far more than any morale check in one hit concern, a bunch of cheaper figures are much more vulnerable to breath weapons.
I've said it any number of times. All I look at is that number in the corner. The point cost.
- Dagni
Edit: of course, that's not to pick on you at all, Chris. Any number of people I highly respect, including you, put some significance in the concept of breakpoints and the like. I just happen to disagree with the concept. | |
Proud member of the GRUUMSH fan club! | |
|
John05
Warrior
246 Posts
| | 02/06/2006 4:14 PM |
| quote:
Originally posted by LeClaire
@ 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.
I see now that we were merely misscommunicating. We actually meant the same thing. Sorry I did not understand you at first.
I see now that you mean to say that a figure can be absolutely efficient with respect to specific attributes in comparison with other figures. For example, the zombie white dragon is efficient in terms of points to HP ratio. If its "role" was to simply "have a lot of HP" then we have absolute values for both cost (points) and product (HP), in which case the efficiency would be a function of 130:37.
That makes sense. The reason why I considered it an oxymoron was because I was thinking "absolute" from the point of view of the game not just a single-dimensional, numeric/discrete aspect of it, which brings me to my next point...
quote:
Originally posted by Balduran I
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.
The reason why I speak of efficiency from a universal role is because I was originally trying to steer away from the other extreme that I saw the debate leading towards: that every piece is efficient in its own role. That, I believe, is far less useful than judging efficiency of a piece given this universal role of "winning".
Let's face it, most of us play to win. Sure we play to have fun, but i doubt that many people play with the intention of losing.
Also, judging a piece's efficiency based on its SPECIFIC role has its flaws in assuming that the roles are EQUAL. They are not. I can assure you that the roles "running to a victory area on the first round" and "being able to grant an extra 5% to pass a conceal check every other roll" are not equal roles. Depending on the environment/metagame, different roles each have their own kind of efficiencies and values associated with them. Does anyone want to actually bother with that? Wouldn't it be better to just get straight to the point and determine the value of a piece itself rather than defining its efficiency for a specific role... and THEN determining the value of that role itself?
An example you gave was the healer. Suppose, just suppose, the metagame shifted such that most pieces have 10 hp. The healer would immediately lose value. Sure, she's the most efficient piece for healing, but how valuable is 10 point healing when figures only have 10 hp in the first place?
Judging a piece's efficiency at "helping you win" is quick and not as useless as you would think. It's actually better because we completely avoid the problem of having to determine the value of that role. That role will remain important and top-priority for a piece as long as we don't all turn into peace loving gamers who stop caring about winning. Such a role still depends on the metagame/environment, but, as I've been trying to point out, the efficiency of a piece will rely on its environment no matter what anyway.
Some pieces won't be as dependent as others on the environment, but nonetheless they are dependent to a degree. That is why these things are never constant. The game changes. What if the standard shifted from Assault to Quickstrike? Would titan bands become less effective? Would the HP ratio matter more or less? I dont know the answer, but I know for sure that these "roles" and value would change for sure. That much is undeniable.
So to turn the question back again at you (sorry I can't resist, I do like arguing. Guilty pleasure... [:D]), why must we have a definition for a kind of "Efficiency" or unquantifiable value that is completely independent of the metagame/environment? It's not necessary. I'm sure the good players of maxminis don't have problems with understanding the environment anyway. Heck, even numbers in math and laws in physics rely on environment variables for them to be defined properly. Why should "efficiency" for DDM be any different? | |
| |
|
neil
Skirmisher
2 Posts
| | 02/06/2006 4:33 PM |
| Balduran I Posted - 02/06/2006 : 01:16:07 AM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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.
----------
These definitions really don't help to clarify anything at all. The same old arguments of high damage vs. high attack, high hp, special abilities, etc., can still go on within those parameters, and it's still a matter of preference and chance. Therefore, I also believe that you are impeding the analysis of this situation. There must be some way to discuss this game logically................................................................................................................................................................................................................actually, no...........There is no way to logically discuss DDM. It's not like chess. Nothing about it is fair. You can barely even play the odds, as in card games. Success is probably based on experience, or genetics, or maybe some combination. Basically nobody has said much to aid strategic thinking, but just been bickering. | |
| |
|
Balduran I
Sergeant
404 Posts
| | 02/06/2006 7:44 PM |
| John,
Arguing... the sport of geeks... I mean Kings! [:D]
quote:
The reason why I speak of efficiency from a universal role is because I was originally trying to steer away from the other extreme that I saw the debate leading towards: that every piece is efficient in its own role. That, I believe, is far less useful than judging efficiency of a piece given this universal role of "winning".
I never said that, and I don’t think anyone else did either. I keep saying just the opposite, in fact – for a given role there are efficient figs and inefficient figs.
quote:
Also, judging a piece's efficiency based on its SPECIFIC role has its flaws in assuming that the roles are EQUAL. They are not. I can assure you that the roles "running to a victory area on the first round" and "being able to grant an extra 5% to pass a conceal check every other roll" are not equal roles.
Again, John, you’re arguing with yourself. No one says any such thing.
quote:
Depending on the environment/metagame, different roles each have their own kind of efficiencies and values associated with them. Does anyone want to actually bother with that?
Conceptually we totally agree, it’s the terms (and their value in explaining what really happens when evaluating a fig) I’m arguing about. Efficiency is the potential value of the unit; effectiveness is the actual value. The first is independent of environment, the second can be largely determined by the environment.
quote:
Does anyone want to actually bother with that?
Lol. Well, I say that the best players already do. They pare down the hundreds of figs available by efficiency, then evaluate what they have according to how effective they’ll be given what they think the environment will be.
quote:
Wouldn't it be better to just get straight to the point and determine the value of a piece itself rather than defining its efficiency for a specific role... and THEN determining the value of that role itself?
I’m lost as to what you mean. A figure’s Efficiency has nothing to do with the value of a role. That’s the area of strategy – if I build a band of all 5 HP figs, and put a Healer into it, then that’s a bad strategy. But it doesn’t mean that the Healer is not Efficient, simply that it’s not Effective in the environment I set up.
quote:
An example you gave was the healer. Suppose, just suppose, the metagame shifted such that most pieces have 10 hp. The healer would immediately lose value. Sure, she's the most efficient piece for healing, but how valuable is 10 point healing when figures only have 10 hp in the first place?
Well, I didn’t use it as an example before this post. I asked you to use it in however you would analyze it, compared to a couple of other figs, given that you claimed a “universal role – winning” was a good criteria to use. (Something you’ve yet to do, btw.)
But ironically you just showed the value of the Efficiency/Effectiveness divide. The Healer is a very efficient fig – compared to other Good healing figs it’s the best for its points, and also is cheap in absolute terms. Whether or not it’ll be Effective is another question all together! One that must be answered, but the best answer will come once you’ve identified the most efficient healer to use. If healing isn’t going to be effective in your environment, don’t use it. But if it will be… how will you choose which healer to use? Gut feeling? Or evaluating which healer is most efficient? [:)]
quote:
Judging a piece's efficiency at "helping you win" is quick and not as useless as you would think. It's actually better because we completely avoid the problem of having to determine the value of that role. That role will remain important and top-priority for a piece as long as we don't all turn into peace loving gamers who stop caring about winning. Such a role still depends on the metagame/environment, but, as I've been trying to point out, the efficiency of a piece will rely on its environment no matter what anyway.
No, the effectiveness of a piece will be determined by the environment. A fig’s efficiency is determinable in the context of its own warband and what other figs could be substituted for it, without reference to what it’s facing. Of course roles are determined by environment – what your objectives are, what you’ll be facing, what your strategy is – but no, none of that determines a figure’s efficiency. They determine its effectiveness.
Anyway, your definition of efficiency - does it help me win - begs the question: why is it efficient? If a figure is in a band that wins, then it’s efficient. If the band loses, it’s inefficient. Why does it win? Well, of course, because it’s efficient. Sorry, that doesn’t answer anything. Breaking out why a fig is "good" is the job, and it’s just done more efficiently and effectively by acknowledging that there are two distinct parts to it.
quote:
Some pieces won't be as dependent as others on the environment, but nonetheless they are dependent to a degree. That is why these things are never constant. The game changes. What if the standard shifted from Assault to Quickstrike? Would titan bands become less effective? Would the HP ratio matter more or less? I dont know the answer, but I know for sure that these "roles" and value would change for sure. That much is undeniable.
No one is saying ‘pieces aren’t dependent on the environment,’ their Effectiveness is intimately tied to the environment. And again, you show the value of knowing which pieces are Efficient before looking at which will be Effective. Things do change! It’s nice to know, though, that if I’m looking at putting healing into my band, the Healer is a very efficient fig to use.
quote:
So to turn the question back again at you (sorry I can't resist, I do like arguing. Guilty pleasure... ), why must we have a definition for a kind of "Efficiency" or unquantifiable value that is completely independent of the metagame/environment? It's not necessary. I'm sure the good players of maxminis don't have problems with understanding the environment anyway. Heck, even numbers in math and laws in physics rely on environment variables for them to be defined properly. Why should "efficiency" for DDM be any different?
On the contrary, it is necessary, because the single concept that you call Efficiency is insufficient to really describe the two tier evaluation that really takes place when evaluating a figure’s value. | |
| |
|
Urban Druid
Warrior
253 Posts
| | 02/06/2006 9:26 PM |
| The single best (not only!) measure of efficiency is that of the warband, which will rely somewhat on the prevailing metagame.
Individual pieces can be examined, just as individual parts of a car can be examined. A motor could be particularly well-built, and designed for fuel-efficiency. That's a good start for an efficient car, but many other factors effect the vehicle's overall performance: transmission, tires, the exhaust configuration, etc. Even the manner in which the car is driven and operated can have a significant impact on fuel-efficiency.
A good warband analysis is much the same. It is perfectly understandable to attempt an evaluation of a single piece in the car, but the entire package is still an important consideration. | |
*This post was recorded before a live studio audience* | |
|
Zyla
Underboss
1191 Posts
| | 02/06/2006 9:56 PM |
| The car anaolgy can be used for titan type warbands too. Sure a high point figure may be able to fight well, but without a supporting cast there is no point in playing the big figure. A Titan figure would be considerd the engine of the car, if the engine fails the car dies.
Thus you have to make sure everything supports and helps the cars engine run well, such as the air filter, coolent, the type of oil used, and how well the exhaust system is, all these are important to keep an engine running, same is true with a Titan warband, this is where its hard to say something is effective or efficient without looking at the warband as a whole. | |
| |
|
EldritchSoul
Warrior
324 Posts
| | 02/07/2006 1:20 AM |
| I think I see what John is missing here as far as roles go.
you can put a figure into a role, but that figure is ONLY going to be compared to other figures in it's category. not all roles are equal, so not all figures will be compared with eachother.
let's look at 3 roles a figure can have (there are more, but these are quite common)
-Beater
-tech
-tile grabber
(on a side note, i don't view "wasting points" and "scaring newbs" to be roles, the actual roles in an army that a figure can take up are fairly limited)
for a beater, you're going to focus on 3 main factors: speed (gotta get there quick to start dishing out damage), attack bonus (gotta hit to be worthwhile), and damage (if you're poking for 5, it's gonna be a LONG game) other abilities will matter, but if a figure doesn't at least cover these 3 bases, it's not even in the running.
for tech, it's going to be about spells and special abilities
for tile grabbing, it's going to be about speed and either cost or survivability.
you have a budget for your car and the parts you need for it, you have to decide between getting an upgrade on the fuel injection system or the brakes. you're not going to be comparing the abilities of brakes A to fuel injection C, you're going to compare the benefits of improving the injection to the benefits of improving the brakes, and THEN comparing brakes A to brakes B to brakes C. | |
Champion of Dracotaur- Vindicated!
T32 | |
| 
Vrecknidj
Warlord
10425 Posts
United States
| | 02/07/2006 12:22 PM |
| quote:
Originally posted by EldritchSoul
for a beater, you're going to focus on 3 main factors: speed (gotta get there quick to start dishing out damage), attack bonus (gotta hit to be worthwhile), and damage (if you're poking for 5, it's gonna be a LONG game) other abilities will matter, but if a figure doesn't at least cover these 3 bases, it's not even in the running.
I think you have to include AC, hp, and level. Consider Eye of Gruumsh: with his AC, the fact that he loses 5 hp every time he hits, and that his level is fairly low, his chance of running off the board is quite high. If he were, say, level 12, he'd be an absolute monster (more than just the relative monster that he already is[)]). Some other beaters, like the Goliath, suffer from a low level, and from a fragile AC, and so I think these are relevant.
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! | |
|
EldritchSoul
Warrior
324 Posts
| | 02/07/2006 12:50 PM |
| | I did say that other abilities will matter, but no figure that doesn't meet AT LEAST those 3 factors will be considered as a beater. basically, those are the minimum job requirements. graduate degree and 2 years experience preferred [:)] | |
Champion of Dracotaur- Vindicated!
T32 | |
|
Vrecknidj
Warlord
10425 Posts
United States
| |
Balduran I
Sergeant
404 Posts
| | 02/07/2006 1:22 PM |
| On Beaters.
Statistically, the Ogre Ravager vs. the Warforged Hero is an almost exactly even battle. One on one, each will do 15 damage per full attack. Each has 80 HP. The battle will go to whoever passes morale (advantage 15% to Ogre Ravager), or whoever beats the odds with their attacks. Yet the OR is considered an efficient beater, the WH less so (if at all). Why? Answering that specifically it would be a discussion in and of itself, but at root it’s because making the Attack + Damage balance efficiency wise with AC + Level is (apparently) not a purely mathematical exercise.
At any rate the job of a beater is to beat, and so far in figure development putting out the smack down simply translates to that better than being able to take a beating and slowly hand out the damage. The key to rating Efficiency is substitutability – what can I choose for the warband that could take the place of something else. One of them will be “better” than the other; that “better” quality will translate into its efficiency. It simply gives more bang for the buck. The kind of bang you’re looking for is up to you, but I agree with Eldritch, for a beater Speed, To Hit, and Damage trump AC and Save definitely, and HP to a lesser extent, when rating its efficiency. | |
| |
|
Urban Druid
Warrior
253 Posts
| | 02/07/2006 3:13 PM |
| quote:
Originally posted by Balduran I
...so far in figure development putting out the smack down simply translates to that better than being able to take a beating and slowly hand out the damage...
So, in your opinion then, what is the reason for the notable success of the Helmed Horror? | |
*This post was recorded before a live studio audience* | |
|
Vrecknidj
Warlord
10425 Posts
United States
| | 02/07/2006 4:45 PM |
| How do we measure substitutability when comparing the WFH and the Ogre Ravager? I mean, you can't use either one in the other's band. I get comparing the Ore Ravager, Orc Champion and Red Samurai. They're all close in points, and they all offer something a little different. They're all almost substitutable.
For LG, we'd have to look at WFH, Gith Monk perhaps, and Skullclan Hunter. All roughly the same points. Each has its merits and drawbacks. Without a Young Master, the Gith Monk is rarely the best choice of the three, but sometimes he still will be.
I think that the Helmed Horror stands out as an exception to the triumverate of beater stats (speed, damage, attack), because of its extremely high AC and fearlessness. While AC and morale save may be farther down the scale of importance to a beater, fearlessness definitely gives a bump up, and a high AC does as well. Note that the Clay Golem's AC is great for CE, if it was speed 6, or didn't require instruction, it would show up in a lot more bands. The fact is, it still manages to show up with some occasion because what it lacks in speed, it makes up for in AC and fearlessness.
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
| | 02/07/2006 4:55 PM |
| Urban Druid,
IMO the designers are getting better at the Att + Damage vs. AC + HP + Save calculation. My apologies if I gave the impression that a beater will always be whoever hits hardest; "so far" should have said… well, probably “the history of” instead. At any rate I’m convinced that there is a point where Defensive burlyness will match Offensive burlyness, making two figs that are radically different be in practice equal in efficiency. On the whole we're not there yet - most times offensive in a beater trumps defense. But the Helmed Horror is part of the progression towards 'balanced' efficiency.
It’s success comes from a radically beefed up defense and a small increase in offense. For defense Fearless, for practical purposes, increases the HP of a fig (how much is debatable, but to my mind it can sometimes effectively double HP). I’ve always had the opinion that a printed 15 damage was the ‘break point’ between a beater and non-beater. (Again, lot’s of folks disagree, seeing 20 or 25 as the I’m-a-beater point.) As well, the To Hit is better – so the HH will do 19.5 damage per full attack (barring fire resistance/immunity) against AC 20. (The OR will do 25.5 and the WH will do a paltry 12.0.) 20 damage per round against good AC means that it’s a beater in practice, not just theory. Again IMO.
But it’s the HH survivability that puts it over the top. While some may say that 20 pts a round is not beater territory, the fact that its defensive abilities will keep it around to do that 20 per round for many rounds against other figs means that it ends up being very effective as a beater in real life.
In short, the HH’s superior efficiency derives from defense; offensively it’s good, but there are other figs as efficient in that particular area. It’s effectiveness derives from leveraging that only “good” offense into a much longer life span that other similarly costed figs.
--- edit --- x post with the OP there... we agree on the HH! [:)] | |
| |
|
Balduran I
Sergeant
404 Posts
| | 02/07/2006 5:04 PM |
| quote:
Originally posted by Vrecknidj
How do we measure substitutability when comparing the WFH and the Ogre Ravager? I mean, you can't use either one in the other's band. I get comparing the Ore Ravager, Orc Champion and Red Samurai. They're all close in points, and they all offer something a little different. They're all almost substitutable.
Wasn't implying they're substitutable, was discussing what makes an efficient beater. Taking two "beaters" (at least they look to have been designed as such), and comparing why everyone agrees one is a beater (the OR), while the beaterific status of the other (the WH) is debated. | |
| |
|
Wrackspawn
ChristopherGroves
Warlord
6093 Posts
| |
Balduran I
Sergeant
404 Posts
| | 02/07/2006 6:18 PM |
| quote:
Originally posted by ChristopherGroves
The Helmed Horror is not a beater. The Helmed Horror is a defensive piece. It doesn't need to be compared directly.
Balduran, on the "beater" standpoint the key differentiator on these is speed. The OR works, the WFH does not. Speed is at this point and time a key attribute.
Now, if there is a map that comes out littered with difficult ground and spiked stones that LG can get with their great init bonuses a reliable % of the time, maybe the WFH could be compared more easily.
Yet if we do compare it directly, in a fight with an acknowledged beater (Ogre Ravager), with a buff to bring the point cost very close to parity (casting Magic Weapon on the Ravager, worth at least 5 points, if not 7), they are, mathematically, evenly matched. Each will take 5 full attacks to destroy the other. (The OR does 21.0 damage per full attack, the HH does 16.5)
And the HH is used as such in real life – an LE version of the main melee damage dealer. Few in the LE arsenal are better at it, and it’s used as such in warbands. IMO that makes it effectively a beater. Many (most?) 40 or so point figs can’t stand toe to toe with the Ravager and have any reasonable prospect of winning. In LE there’s only a few damage dealers (Duegar Champ, Skullcrusher, Chraal) arguably as or more efficient that way (damage for points) in LE, yet another argument that it is a beater. Unless we want to say that LE simply has no beaters in the 30-40 or so point cost range. Which is possible. I guess one could say that only Chaos has beaters in that range; Lawful tends towards damage over time (a long drawn out beating) while Chaos hits all at once. Everything can potentially deal damage over time, though. There is some point, IMO, where the amount of damage with each attack becomes beaterific. I think I just view that amount as lower than you.
Speed does kill. It's always been tops, IMO, in DDM. If the environment changes that may change, as you say. | |
| |
|
John05
Warrior
246 Posts
| | 02/07/2006 7:49 PM |
| You see. This is why I wanted to steer away from the whole "efficiency value based on roles" argument. We can barely agree on the specific roles of different minis. To Chris, the HH should not be classified as a beater. To Balduran I, it does, or at least comes close. To me, I'm not sure, because I don't like this whole idea of generic "roles". Each figure has either an extremely specific role, wrapped into a generic role: To help me win, given my current environment. Too much disagreement. It's too open to interpretation. This is a classic indication of poor definition/terminology.
What is too generic? What is too specific? Quite possibly, from this latest argument that sprung up, the term "beater" could be too generic. Some people may consider only fast, heavy hitting, critters to be "beaters". Others just consider them to be strong melee units.
Also, back to the healer argument. No, the Healer is not "efficient" unless we look at the metagame. That much is given. Ignore its healing, and just focus on its stats. Efficient as unit. However, if we analyse the environment...
"Oh, enemy units don't do 65 damage. Oh, my units have more than 10 life, so 10 pt healing actually makes a difference! Ok, I understand why Healer can be efficient."
This is a trivial example because special abilities are NOT covered by your currently accepted definition "efficient". More complex examples would even have you doubting the constistency of the values of HP and damage.
If we have trouble even defining the "roles" of different minis how are we going to determine the efficiencies of individual figures (especially non-vanilla) without analyzing environment variables? Even for vanilla figures...
~John | |
| |
|
John05
Warrior
246 Posts
| | 02/07/2006 8:11 PM |
| To those who would complain that I am hampering innovation and discussion, I will argue that I am NOT (at least from my perspective). I don't think this concept of a
"metagame-independent efficiency" is a useful one at all (if it even exists). Going by the very standard, technical meaning, it simply means (output)/(input). The greater the output of a piece (win %) in relation to input (points), the greater the efficiency. That is all it means in the most technical sense.
In physics, it's a ratio of work (output) to energy (input).
In economics, it's production (output) to resources (input).
These ratios are almost unequivocally dependent on environment. It's assumed that environmental variables are taken into account. If you were to ignore environmental variables, the best you'd have is an "estimated efficiency", and you wouldn't even have that if you didn't have context to work with.
However, I see that no one agrees with me on this issue and continue to argue that "efficiency" for DDM is different from efficiency in general. This lack of symmetry hurts me, but I'll go along with it.
Supposing that efficiency as most people on this thread have defined it really is different from efficiency in general. Is it really useful as defined (as "a value completely independent of the metagame")?
I ask Kiddoc, Fenris, and any other champions whether they've ever NOT paid any attention to the metagame. Fenris, when designing his band for GenCon, the first thing he writes that he did:
quote:
Preparation
When the Angelfire spoilers hit the internet, I looked them over carefully, trying to figure out what people might play in the championship. It was much harder to guess the metagame this year than last, which I think is a credit to the designers...
Before the Angelfire figures even hit the shelves, he was already considering their effects on the environment. That is what a good player does. I doubt that he even believes in this concept of a completely "context-free efficiency".
Albeit, some of you may argue "How would he know about the metagame unless he knew some sort of absolute efficiency value before hand?" Note that one of the figures he anticipated in the metagame was the Justice Archon. This is a figure with an indeterminate efficiency value due to its Justice Strike, an attribute which is almost entirely dependent on the metagame. This of course, creates an interesting chain of dependencies which I'm sure most of us would rather not think about. The values of figures and the metagame are inseperable in that sense.
Currently, I don't think we have effective algorithms or heuristics to come close to what we can simply intuit. I think it would be more productive to discuss the CURRENT metagame and WHY the Duergar Champion is CURRENTLY efficient, rather than why it is efficient bar-none. (And why the efficiency of certain pieces is dropping, such as the Justice Archon's).
For example, I think what makes the Helmed Horror efficient are:
1. 95 HP
This is an excellent value because against 15 damage hitters, over 6 attacks would be needed to kill it. At exactly 6 hits, the HH would sitll have 5 HP left. This is similar to the reason 65 HP was a magic number. It's inconvenient to the opponent to come up with 35 damage for a morale check. For the HH, it's inconvenient to come up with that last 5 points of damage without creating waste. Another 15 damage attack is 10 damage wasted. However, figures that deal 5 damage generally have low attack bonuses and won't be able to finish.
2. High attack bonus.
This is important in the current metagame. A +16/+11 to attack wouldn't be as important if the metagame was full of 10 AC berserkers or 11 AC Eyes.
3. Blindsight.
Conceal is becoming more common.
4. Flying.
With high AC, commander assassination becomes more viable... etc.
5. The current environment still hasn't completely rid itself of the past. Low attack bonuses are still showing up regularly even competitively.
6. DR and Fire Resistance still aren't too common on a single figure. If this wasn't true, the HH would be effectively doing 5 damage per attack. | |
| |
|
Balduran I
Sergeant
404 Posts
| | 02/07/2006 8:22 PM |
| John,
I hear you arguing, but only arguing for "nothing is definable." Ok, that's a view. But your lack of acceptance of a definition doesn't mean the definition is invalid.
For example, the Healer. If Most Efficient is defined as the potential best at what it does for the point cost, how is the Healer not efficient? Again, you claim it's not, even that it's "a given" it's not, but simply by claiming the definition is invalid. That's not an argument, that's a rejection of the premise. My premise is that figure's can be evaluated, and it's best to do it in a two step process: efficiency as it relates to what you can use, and effectiveness as it relates to what you will face. The definitions come from that.
If your argument is not "Figure's can't be evaluated because it's all too complex" (something that some do think), please say what it is. Until I know exactly what you're arging I don't know what else to say. | |
| |
|
John05
Warrior
246 Posts
| | 02/07/2006 8:29 PM |
| quote:
Originally posted by Balduran I
If your argument is not "Figure's can't be evaluated because it's all too complex" (something that some do think), please say what it is. Until I know exactly what you're arging I don't know what else to say.
My argument is that figures can't possibly be evaluated without context. The reason why you so confidently say "the Healer is efficient" or "Aramil is efficient" is because you have at least some idea of what other figures there are, and what you might face. It's simply a disagreement on terminology.
I think you might not be agreeing with me because most of these calculations based on metagame influence are done subconsciously, and are thus not recognized. To bring these calculations to the surface would be beneficial, I believe. | |
| |
|
IanB
Commander
3112 Posts
| | 02/07/2006 8:31 PM |
| | For my part, while I suppose you could try to come up with some objective measurement of a particular piece's efficiency in a vacuum, it seems like a largely pointless exercise to me. What is the value of debating "efficiency" vs. "metagame value", when only one is a truly useful measurement? | |
Anson on WotC boards | |
|
Balduran I
Sergeant
404 Posts
| | 02/07/2006 8:33 PM |
| x post there...
In DDM efficiency is the same: it's the ratio of production (output of figs into the band) to input (points spent).
And just as in mechanics, or anything else, just because something is efficient doesn't mean it's effective. A Prius is arguably a very efficient vehicle. Stick it in a roadless wild area, however, and it will most likely be completely ineffective at what's its supposed to do, drive around. For that you'd need a Jeep. In that case the less efficient vehicle is much more effective.
Two steps. Efficiency doesn't cover them both. Just like buying a car you'd pick the most efficient vehicle based on what you have available and what you plan to do. If you plan on healing, you'd look for the most efficient healer. If you plan on going to a place where healing isn't usefull (ie, won't be effective), that still doesn't mean that there are not efficient healers. Just as if you plan to go to a place with no roads it doesn't mean the Prius isn't an efficient car, and can't be judged as such against all other cars. | |
| |
|
John05
Warrior
246 Posts
| | 02/07/2006 8:35 PM |
| quote:
Originally posted by IanB
For my part, while I suppose you could try to come up with some objective measurement of a particular piece's efficiency in a vacuum, it seems like a largely pointless exercise to me. What is the value of debating "efficiency" vs. "metagame value", when only one is a truly useful measurement?
Whew.
I was actually very worried. I feel so stubborn arguing against everyone. I often wonder if it's just me ("I believe in what I say... but that could just mean I'm extremely stubborn and stupid!"). It's so difficult convincing myself that I'm wrong (Do I really have ego? [:(]). (Am I just a clueless freak?!)
I even argued against Kiddoc about the point costing of a friend's DDM version of an RPG char... I've been arguing too much lately. It's fun (to me), but I think I should lay low. [B)] So glad to know someone actually agrees for once. relief.... | |
| |
|
Wrackspawn
ChristopherGroves
Warlord
6093 Posts
| | 02/07/2006 8:36 PM |
| Dagni, I'm not saying it's an absolute ... what I'm saying is that even if a figure has great stats for its cost, if there's no place in the game for that piece to fit naturally into a nice warband then it won't see serious play regardless of the cost.
Or better yet, the required "efficiency" number (ratio / curve / factor / widget / whatever) is differently weighted based on different point ranges of minis.
On the HH v Ravager and roles ...
The basic point of the game is to get more points than your enemy by eliminating their figures. There are some things that alter this, but in a basic sense this is the game we play. All bands try to do more damage than suffer at this primal level.
I'm not sure I can express the way I play HHs (in a "I'll never fall behind on points" way) versus playing CE ("I'll kill tons and hopefully not lose tons" way) ... ultimately at the final point it is the same game ... but the bands DO play differently.
Or maybe I'm crazy. | |
Triangle DDM Skirmish Group | My Email | 45-ish trades and counting | Stuff for Trade
* * * Show your brother some love and click here * * * | |
|
John05
Warrior
246 Posts
| | 02/07/2006 8:40 PM |
| quote:
Originally posted by ChristopherGroves
Or maybe I'm crazy.
I constantly worry about that. Please don't end your quote like that, because I actually agree with most of it, and it's relieving to agree with someone saner than myself once in a while. [:o)] | |
| |
|
Balduran I
Sergeant
404 Posts
| | 02/07/2006 8:42 PM |
| quote:
Originally posted by IanB
For my part, while I suppose you could try to come up with some objective measurement of a particular piece's efficiency in a vacuum, it seems like a largely pointless exercise to me.
I'd agree, except that the really good players end up building warbands with what everyone agrees are the "best" pieces, before they sit down to the table. How do they do that? The concept of picking Efficient figures (maximising value - output - for the minimum points - input -... thanks, John. Really, I hadn't thought of of those words but that's exactly what it is), appeals to me as the root of "how they do it," rather than they're just lucky. Or born to the right parents. Or some other imponderable. | |
| |
|
John05
Warrior
246 Posts
| | 02/07/2006 8:49 PM |
| quote:
Originally posted by Balduran I
x post there...
In DDM efficiency is the same: it's the ratio of production (output of figs into the band) to input (points spent).
And just as in mechanics, or anything else, just because something is efficient doesn't mean it's effective. A Prius is arguably a very efficient vehicle. Stick it in a roadless wild area, however, and it will most likely be completely ineffective at what's its supposed to do, drive around. For that you'd need a Jeep. In that case the less efficient vehicle is much more effective.
The efficiency of an engine running in arctic north is greater than that of an engine in the Sahara desert during the summer. I could go into the physics behind that, but all we need to know is that the efficiency of an engine is dependent on the environment. Most people I know would not say "this engine has an efficiency of X, which means it has an effectiveness of A*X in the arctic north and an effectiveness of B*X in the Sahara." Besides the obvious fact that the equations do not even work that way...
In your example, what you mean to say is that Prius has an "average efficiency on Earth over time". It's current efficiency is always changing. You refer to the current efficiency as its "effectiveness" (I do not, but that's beside the point).
The problem with applying this "average efficiency over time" to DDM figures is that the environment changes very frequently, so we won't know a figure's "absolute average efficiency over time" until production ends. | |
| |
|
IanB
Commander
3112 Posts
| | 02/07/2006 8:56 PM |
| quote:
Originally posted by Balduran I
quote:
Originally posted by IanB
For my part, while I suppose you could try to come up with some objective measurement of a particular piece's efficiency in a vacuum, it seems like a largely pointless exercise to me.
I'd agree, except that the really good players end up building warbands with what everyone agrees are the "best" pieces, before they sit down to the table. How do they do that? The concept of picking Efficient figures (maximising value - output - for the minimum points - input -... thanks, John. Really, I hadn't thought of of those words but that's exactly what it is), appeals to me as the root of "how they do it," rather than they're just lucky. Or born to the right parents. Or some other imponderable.
I can tell you it starts with comparing pieces to each other, rather than examining them in a vacuum. The efficiency of pieces changes over time, or else we'd all still be playing displacer beasts.
But really I think it just comes down to recognizing traits that are desirable in a piece, and picking pieces that have lots of those traits. There doesn't have to be a formula for that; indeed because the metagame is variable depending on what town you're in, I'd argue that it almost seems there can't be a formula for that, at least not one that is a useful tool. | |
Anson on WotC boards | |
|
John05
Warrior
246 Posts
| | 02/07/2006 9:03 PM |
| quote:
Originally posted by Balduran I
I'd agree, except that the really good players end up building warbands with what everyone agrees are the "best" pieces, before they sit down to the table. How do they do that? The concept of picking Efficient figures (maximising value - output - for the minimum points - input -... thanks, John. Really, I hadn't thought of of those words but that's exactly what it is), appeals to me as the root of "how they do it," rather than they're just lucky. Or born to the right parents. Or some other imponderable.
You're welcome. And thank you too. But I believe that in deciding the best pieces, they MUST have looked at the metagame. I questioned a few times, like Aravis, why a couple of people decided to use Efreeti instead of Helmed Horror at a tournament. Obviously, the Helmed Horror, when compared to the Efreeti in a vacuum (with only superficial knowledge of the rules and environment), seems superior. However, their reasons for choosing the Efreeti included: the map, the figure limit, time limit,... everything. That's what I think good players do.
Whatever heuristic were used in their subconscious probably originally came up with the HH as a possible choice along with the Efreeti. In defense of your argument, I'm willing to bet that the HH came to their mind first... before being replaced by the Efreeti a few seconds later after considering environment. I could go on, but Ian is actually better suited to explain that example (since he is one of the people I'm referring to). | |
| |
|
Zyla
Underboss
1191 Posts
| | 02/07/2006 9:09 PM |
| | Its just like just because a figure is Tier 1 doesnt mean it will be Tier 1 in your warband | |
| |
|
Wrackspawn
ChristopherGroves
Warlord
6093 Posts
| | 02/07/2006 9:32 PM |
| quote:
Originally posted by John05
quote:
Originally posted by Balduran I
I'd agree, except that the really good players end up building warbands with what everyone agrees are the "best" pieces, before they sit down to the table. How do they do that? The concept of picking Efficient figures (maximising value - output - for the minimum points - input -... thanks, John. Really, I hadn't thought of of those words but that's exactly what it is), appeals to me as the root of "how they do it," rather than they're just lucky. Or born to the right parents. Or some other imponderable.
You're welcome. And thank you too. But I believe that in deciding the best pieces, they MUST have looked at the metagame. I questioned a few times, like Aravis, why a couple of people decided to use Efreeti instead of Helmed Horror at a tournament. Obviously, the Helmed Horror, when compared to the Efreeti in a vacuum (with only superficial knowledge of the rules and environment), seems superior. However, their reasons for choosing the Efreeti included: the map, the figure limit, time limit,... everything. That's what I think good players do.
Whatever heuristic were used in their subconscious probably originally came up with the HH as a possible choice along with the Efreeti. In defense of your argument, I'm willing to bet that the HH came to their mind first... before being replaced by the Efreeti a few seconds later after considering environment. I could go on, but Ian is actually better suited to explain that example (since he is one of the people I'm referring to).
This discussion has been good in describing figures in a vacuum (or relative one). When we start to look at specific choices for specific warbands we get into the area of serious chance and gambling (and I'm not talking d20s). Instead I'm talking making a guess on the expected metagame.
Sure, some pieces and some bands do well-enough in most environments. Still, even the best bands have at least one poor match-up out of a field of probably 10-20 likely-enough opponents. In a small event, that matters less and less as you can take a bit more risk in that you'll likely not face even most of the conceivable combinations.
When you think about whether to include a Helmed Horror or Efreeti, or whether or not the Rakshasa is a better commander than the Dark Naga ... it depends alot on your band and what you'd expect to face. In small events, better players will play more risky bands ... but in bigger events they gravitate towards units that are more predictable and reliable over the broadest cross-section of the expected metagame. | |
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
| | 02/07/2006 9:56 PM |
| quote:
Originally posted by John05
You're welcome. And thank you too. But I believe that in deciding the best pieces, they MUST have looked at the metagame. I questioned a few times, like Aravis, why a couple of people decided to use Efreeti instead of Helmed Horror at a tournament. Obviously, the Helmed Horror, when compared to the Efreeti in a vacuum (with only superficial knowledge of the rules and environment), seems superior. However, their reasons for choosing the Efreeti included: the map, the figure limit, time limit,... everything. That's what I think good players do.
Whatever heuristic were used in their subconscious probably originally came up with the HH as a possible choice along with the Efreeti. In defense of your argument, I'm willing to bet that the HH came to their mind first... before being replaced by the Efreeti a few seconds later after considering environment. I could go on, but Ian is actually better suited to explain that example (since he is one of the people I'm referring to).
I disagree with a couple of points, the most important being the implication that the Efreeti and HH are the only two ways to spend 40 some odd points. Even narrowed down to roles (mainly melee guys), there are other ways to spend the points to put that in the band. Why not use a Mummy or Hook Horror, with points left over? "Because they suck!" obviously. lol But WHY do they (and other combinations of figs that equal 40; nothing says that any fig must be subbed 1:1) suck? They don't do as much as either of the above for the points. That's Efficiency! And it has nothing to do with what they think they'll face.
Now that it's down to two, though, from the myriad choices of how to spend 40 points on melee guys, THEN it becomes a question of which |
|
|
|
|
|