Age of Sigmar Balance by Math

[darkelf]

it is possible.

[BaldoBeardo]

No, no it isn't.

There's nothing in that video that's new. He's just applied stuff in his own arbitrary way.

And hasn't touched abilities, more importantly.

Interesting watch, but... in terms of concept nothing thousands of others haven't tried.

 

Also, I love the fact a guy who publishes a video on YouTube on how he constructed a spreadsheet about toy soldiers feels confident enough to mock people who take stuff too seriously...

"Reeeeeee..."?! [emoji38]

 

Sent from my Nexus 5X using Tapatalk

 

 

 

 

[BURF1]

2 minutes ago, darkelf said:

it is possible.

It'd get you closer to do that much work for every model in the game, still wouldn't be fully balanced. Neat video though.

[Galas]

Yes, it is possible! (But desirable? From a narrative perspective, its a fact that more balanced=less variety, independent of the quality of the rules*) But the people that can do this is expensive  

And Games Workshop and his creative team its like a big boys club. You only need to read his job offers: 

" We believe that attitudes and personal qualities are more important than skills; for many jobs we will happily help you learn the skills you need if you bring a great attitude to your work.  "

Source

Knowing that you can totally understand all the problems with balance (And obviously with the comercial reasons, like when one of the perry brothers explain how the marketing team obligated them to make all the warhammer40k units 50% cheaper because from 2nd edition to 3rd edition they need to use double the models)

 

* Explaying this: If you had a ruleset with double the rules and options, if it his written by the same person with the same quality level of desing, it will be less balanced than a ruleset with half the options. Thats just a fact.

[darkelf]

4 minutes ago, BaldoBeardo said:

And hasn't touched abilities, more importantly.

you don't actually think it would be hard to do right? please tell me you don't think that would be a challenge.

 

create an index function referencing tables with abilities listed categorically to apply a scaling factor based on the relative strength of the ability effect.

I'm not even that smart and I know how to do it.

[BaldoBeardo]

you don't actually think it would be hard to do right? please tell me you don't think that would be a challenge.
 
create an index function referencing tables with abilities listed categorically to apply a scaling factor based on the relative strength of the ability effect.
I'm not even that smart and I know how to do it.

Yep. It's all about applying scaling factors.
That's what's been missing up to now, in the nearly 2 years AoS has been available.
A table of scaling factors.
This guy is deffo some kinda Turing muhfuggah.
Excuse me while I giggle myself stupider...



Sent from my Nexus 5X using Tapatalk

[darkelf]

10 minutes ago, BaldoBeardo said:

Yep. It's all about applying scaling factors.
That's what's been missing up to now, in the nearly 2 years AoS has been available.
A table of scaling factors.
This guy is deffo some kinda Turing muhfuggah.
Excuse me while I giggle myself stupider...

to my knowledge no one is currently using math to balance the game in an official way so your post is not relevant to the discussion.

 

[Squirrelmaster]

Sorry, but I really think this kind of maths requires too many assumptions and arbitrary values to be meaningful. For example, simply calculating "average wounds caused" doesn't tell you the difference between a 1 in 6 chance of inflicting 6 wounds, and a guarantee of causing 1.

A 1-wound model who can dish out 10,000 wounds per turn is definitely not the same as a 100-wound model who can dish out 100.

And the effectiveness of certain units depends on the metagame, which depends on the cost of other units. Make all lightly armoured (or unarmoured) units more expensive, and units with high rend will get better as a result.

Plus, a faction that has access to lots of cheap horde-clearing units might be expected to pay more for high-rend attacks than a faction that doesn't. Simply comparing unit-by-unit across factions misses this.

Where two units are very similar (read: nearly identical), and you can focus in on just one or two traits, this kind of maths may be helpful to understand or compare, but thinking you can model the entire system this way is frankly absurd.

[BaldoBeardo]

to my knowledge no one is currently using math to balance the game in an official way so your post is not relevant to the discussion.

 

You're.. you're serious, aren't you?

Okay. Please give us an overview of how you'd rank SCE Judicator's Eternal Judgement ability and the Bloodsecrator's Rage of Khorne.

Using math.

(Just which one is better, not a specific ranking factor or anything)

 

Sent from my Nexus 5X using Tapatalk

 

 

 

[darkelf]

1 minute ago, Squirrelmaster said:

doesn't tell you the difference between a 1 in 6 chance of inflicting 6 wounds, and a guarantee of causing 1.

yes it does because you include the probability of those outcomes in the calculation of the expected result

 

2 minutes ago, Squirrelmaster said:

A 1-wound model who can dish out 10,000 wounds per turn is definitely not the same as a 100-wound model who can dish out 100

who said they were, I didn't. that kind of nuance is not hard to model either.

4 minutes ago, Squirrelmaster said:

the effectiveness of certain units depends on the metagame, which depends on the cost of other units.

list building will always be its own thing. if you take an entire army of archers with nothing for holding the line and nothing for flanking then even in a game with good points efficiency balance you will lose to a more well rounded list. The point of points efficiency is to square up the relative strength of those options.

 

7 minutes ago, Squirrelmaster said:

a faction that has access to lots of cheap horde-clearing units might be expected to pay more for high-rend attacks than a faction that doesn't.

that sort of meta factional balance can be layered on top of a unit based efficiency balance system. its not hard.

 

8 minutes ago, Squirrelmaster said:

you can model the entire system this way is frankly absurd.

I disagree, I think you are just not realizing the power of the available analytical modeling techniques were they to be applied to the problem. To be fair most people don't know what is possible with respect to mathematical systems modeling because it isn't something many people ever learn about.

 

11 minutes ago, BaldoBeardo said:

Please give us an overview of how you'd rank SCE Judicator's Eternal Judgement ability and the Bloodsecrator's Rage of Khorne.

do it yourself. I already made an example and I don't work for you. Be grateful for the time I already put into that video.

You're being an obnoxious troll right now and unless you start having something substantial to contribute to the conversation I'll have to ask you to leave my thread.

[BaldoBeardo]

Oh my god, that's your video?!
Hashtag humblebrag much?

You can use excel. Kudos.
But all you've done there is change a tail light and claim you know how engines can solve everything.

"Oh my god, how do you work out ability ranking, reeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee..." to paraphrase your own video.

Sent from my Nexus 5X using Tapatalk

[darkelf]

5 minutes ago, BaldoBeardo said:

Oh my god, that's your video?!
Hashtag humblebrag much?

You can use excel. Kudos.
But all you've done there is change a tail light and claim you know how engines can solve everything.

"Oh my god, how do you work out ability ranking, reeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee..." to paraphrase your own video.

Sent from my Nexus 5X using Tapatalk

you really do not have a single intelligent thought to contribute to the discussion. Feel free to come back with something worth talking about.

[BaldoBeardo]

As you have the system all worked out, you can answer my question.
If your system can't even figure out which ability is better using math, then your initial assertion - Age of Sigmar can be balanced solely by math - is false.

Sent from my Nexus 5X using Tapatalk

[TerrorPenguin]

Chill out dudes

 

[Turragor]

Y'all muthachuffas need some zen!

 

[darkelf]

15 minutes ago, BaldoBeardo said:

As you have the system all worked out, you can answer my question.
If your system can't even figure out which ability is better using math, then your initial assertion - Age of Sigmar can be balanced solely by math - is false.

Sent from my Nexus 5X using Tapatalk
 

your lack understanding for how it is possible is not equal to it being difficult to do. stop being so limited.

 

 

[BaldoBeardo]

your lack understanding for how it is possible is not equal to it being difficult to do. stop being so limited.
 
 

You're not Doctor Who.
You know how some excel functions work, and you arbitrarily come up with some numbers to feed into it.
Also, hate to point out, you're the one who keeps bringing up intelligence.

You have made an empirical claim you cannot back up.
Hey, it happens.
There *is* merit to mathematical modelling, and to an extent statistical analysis has a part to play in it too but you can't do that without data, so you can't do it from the get-go.
I'm sorry if my mocking of the video pricked your pride, but that doesn't make your assertion any less wrong.


Sent from my Nexus 5X using Tapatalk

[darkelf]

5 minutes ago, BaldoBeardo said:

You're not Doctor Who

who?

 

5 minutes ago, BaldoBeardo said:

You have made an empirical claim you cannot back up.

in broad strokes with a specific example I outlined the way it can be done. Nothing more nothing less.

 

7 minutes ago, BaldoBeardo said:

your assertion any less wrong

your assertion that I'm wrong based on nothing but your own limited sense of what is possible. Yeah and I am supposed to care about that... funny.

[BaldoBeardo]

There you go with the intelligence contest again.

Feels like projection.

 

Have fun, you've failed on the most basic test there is for any theory.

 

Sent from my Nexus 5X using Tapatalk

 

 

 

 

[darkelf]

1 minute ago, BaldoBeardo said:

There you go with the intelligence contest again.

Feels like projection.

 

Have fun, you've failed on the most basic test there is for any theory.

 

Sent from my Nexus 5X using Tapatalk

 

 

 

 

you say I am wrong with no evidence to back up your claim except for your own assumed authority over the matter. You are a joke.

[BaldoBeardo]

you say I am wrong with no evidence to back up your claim except for your own assumed authority over the matter. You are a joke.

You're the one making the claim.
Onus for evidence is on you.
You refuse to provide evidence when the claim is tested.
Mods, I'm done. This guy doesn't understand how logic works and just wants people to tell him how clever and insightful he is.
Reeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee....

Sent from my Nexus 5X using Tapatalk

[darkelf]

3 minutes ago, BaldoBeardo said:

Onus for evidence is on you.

already provided

 

yo moderators feel free to delete all Baldo's posts and my replies to his posts in this thread since he trolled it to hell providing nothing of substance adding to the discussion.  I intended to simply put forth an example of a way to approach balance in the game that doesn't seem to be a well understood subject.