Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Bharring wrote:
Because, why not, here's more of an elaboration.

Take NOVA. I would estimate (guess) that there were 50+ participants. I would estimate (guess) that there were 50+ participants last year.

I would bet more of the players who were in the top 10 last year who played again this year were in the top 10.

I would further bet that, of those players, the list they used this year was nearly identical to a list that placed below 50%.

If player skill had less impact than a coin toss, you should not expect the same players to place in the top 10 more often than is random (once every 5 showings for a 50man tournament) without some biasing factor.

List construction is a biasing factor, but the presence of the same list in the bottom half more frequently than a top-10-last-year player in the bottom half would strongly suggest that it is *much* less biasing than the player themself.

All this is supposition without having looked at last year's lineup. Go head, look at the results. I'm sure you'd love to prove me wrong. But even sight unseen, I'm quite confident I'm not wrong here.

Not necessarily.

If the lists of the people in the Top 10 changed more dramatically from last year to this year than the list of those in the Bottom 10, it just means that the Top 10 were more willing to chase the meta, buy or borrow the necessary models to win a competition around finding the worst game-designer oversight, vs. players who stuck more closely to what they always play.

If Tony Kopach had won using the exact same list with 120 Conscripts and Guilliman, which he fielded last year, despite the meta changes, you might've had a point.

Sunny Side Up wrote:

Bharring wrote:
Because, why not, here's more of an elaboration.

Take NOVA. I would estimate (guess) that there were 50+ participants. I would estimate (guess) that there were 50+ participants last year.

I would bet more of the players who were in the top 10 last year who played again this year were in the top 10.

I would further bet that, of those players, the list they used this year was nearly identical to a list that placed below 50%.

If player skill had less impact than a coin toss, you should not expect the same players to place in the top 10 more often than is random (once every 5 showings for a 50man tournament) without some biasing factor.

List construction is a biasing factor, but the presence of the same list in the bottom half more frequently than a top-10-last-year player in the bottom half would strongly suggest that it is *much* less biasing than the player themself.

All this is supposition without having looked at last year's lineup. Go head, look at the results. I'm sure you'd love to prove me wrong. But even sight unseen, I'm quite confident I'm not wrong here.

Not necessarily.

If the lists of the people in the Top 10 changed more dramatically from last year to this year than the list of those in the Bottom 10, it just means that the Top 10 were more willing to chase the meta, buy or borrow the necessary models to win a competition around finding the worst game-designer oversight, vs. players who stuck more closely to what they always play.

If Tony Kopach had won using the exact same list with 120 Conscripts and Guilliman, which he fielded last year, despite the meta changes, you might've had a point.

Yeah - and if you asked him if he could have placed just as high with his previous list. He'd certainly tell you. No - It wouldn't have a chance.

I think you're missing half the point:
"I would further bet that, of those players, the list they used this year was nearly identical to a list that placed below 50%. "

If the same players place top 10 more regularly than random chance, there *is* a biasing factor.

If the list were the only biasing factor, you'd see last year's top 10 in the bottom 50% more frequently than you'd see copies of the top 10 players' lists in the bottom 50%.

However, we see top-10 players be more likely top-10, than lists matching top-10 players' lists being top-10. This *strongly* suggests being a better player impacts the game more powerfully than random chance.

I'm not refuting that list building is important. Or that you need a strong list be top 10. I'm showing a reasonable, testable prediction that shows that the player has an impact on their standing beyond their list.

If the top players are so good, maybe they should bring Necrons to the next big tournament? If it is skill after all, they should be able to win with the worst army.

Furthermore - controlling for non-serious lists:
This is one of the reasons why my criteria for 'top lists' was a lot less rigid than my criteria for 'top players'. The bottom 10 lists are *probably* not the same as the top 10 lists.

If you take all the lists that were functionally equivelent to the top-10 lists, you should expect their averages - even if you drop the top 10 from them - to be above the average for the entire population. Because the lists matter.

However, lets say there were 20 people at the event with lists that were the same (counting the top 10). In theory, if all 10 top-10s from last year played this year, and were in that list of 20 people, you should see an average of 5 repeat top-10 placers.

If there were 30 such lists, you'd expect only about 3 of last years' top-10 to be in this year's top-10.

If there were 50 such lists, having more than 2 of last year's top 10 be in this year's top 10 would be notable.

The fact remains that the same people tend to place top 10 across multiple events, often with different armies. Further, more often than not, most of the top-10 lists are the same as the majority of the other top-50 lists at large events.

Clearly, while the list building is important, some players place higher more frequently than others with the same lists. This strongly suggests matchups are determined more by player skill than coin flip. List building is more important than either, but player skill still tops coin flip.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Necron,
I'm not saying that it's not list building. I'm saying that it's not list building *alone*.

I'd argue that if you took at frequently-top-10 player, and put them up against (me, xenos, probably you, etc), with identical or equally powerful lists, the frequently-top-10 player would win more often than not. As in, more frequently than a coin flip.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Xeno,
What part of "List construction is a biasing factor" did you read as "List construction is *not* a biasing factor"?

Bharring wrote:
I think you're missing half the point:
"I would further bet that, of those players, the list they used this year was nearly identical to a list that placed below 50%. "

If the same players place top 10 more regularly than random chance, there *is* a biasing factor.

If the list were the only biasing factor, you'd see last year's top 10 in the bottom 50% more frequently than you'd see copies of the top 10 players' lists in the bottom 50%.

However, we see top-10 players be more likely top-10, than lists matching top-10 players' lists being top-10. This *strongly* suggests being a better player impacts the game more powerfully than random chance.

I'm not refuting that list building is important. Or that you need a strong list be top 10. I'm showing a reasonable, testable prediction that shows that the player has an impact on their standing beyond their list.

So what you're saying is the players who regularly top 10 all use loaded dice. /sarcasm

Ultimately what separates the top players from the middle of the pack is better preparation. Making as informed a choice as possible when building their list for the current meta. Making the correct plays to minimise how much chance impacts the game. Being familiar with their opponents army and knowing what they're aiming to do next turn and the turn after that. While these may seem relatively insignificant compared to other games all the benefits from proper planning add up. All other things equal in higher level play the player who makes the most mistakes is always the player most likely to lose.

Sunny Side Up wrote:

Go read his post.

I feel that your answer is a Underwear Gnomes plan.
Step 1: Determine to balance the game
Step 2: Sampling ???
Step 3: Profit.

 NecronLord3 wrote:
If the top players are so good, maybe they should bring Necrons to the next big tournament? If it is skill after all, they should be able to win with the worst army.

By that logic you'd expect a naked marine with a toothpick to take down some random guy with an ak-47 from 100 paces away with broken glass all over the ground.

Maybe 40k is not as simple as some people claim, but SC2 jsut has a lot more room for the human factor to influence a game. The amount of (split second) decisions coupled with the actual physical execution is just so much more demanding and complex than 40k's rules framework.

IronBrand,
For a Space Marine, 100 paces is spitting distance!

Which matters, because acid spit.

So the Marine might actually win that.

(Totally kidding, agree with your point.)

BertBert wrote:
Maybe 40k is not as simple as some people claim, but SC2 jsut has a lot more room for the human factor to influence a game. The amount of (split second) decisions coupled with the actual physical execution is just so much more demanding and complex than 40k's rules framework.

I can adjust my build based off scouting. 40K has blind meta guessing.

Besides eldar soups are there any actual lists that can do that for real? All other faction seem to have that one build, if they are mostly mono lists, or consist of pre build detachments one can't just mix and match, because of points costs.

List building and chasing the power codex creep is just as much competitive 40k as skill.

Skill in 40k comes mostly down to target priority, deployment and knowing the core mechanics of both players armies, but ultimately it's a game of dice and the best laid plans can be undone by rolling a bad string of dice early on.

Most of competitive play is the codex you play. It's all about understanding the meta and tailoring your list that will beat most of that meta and outside any blindside lists that no one thought of yet - 9 PBC with spitters was never the intention of the codex authors but brutally efficient none the less with a lot of unsuspecting victims when it was first used.

You'll consistently see the same group of top players at the annual events in the top field, but they will also be playing with the best codexes - give someone who has won anything major a GK army for example and they will tell you it's never going to win in a competitive setting.

Then why doesn't GW hotfix stuff that is really bad?

Eldar get a change to how their soup rules work every FAQ, maybe even more often. Yet they are still one of the top armies out there, so what kind of a FAQs are those? If the meta is supposed to be changed every 6-9 months, there can't be armies that are kept good for years or even whole editions.

Bharring wrote:
Furthermore - controlling for non-serious lists:
This is one of the reasons why my criteria for 'top lists' was a lot less rigid than my criteria for 'top players'. The bottom 10 lists are *probably* not the same as the top 10 lists.

If you take all the lists that were functionally equivelent to the top-10 lists, you should expect their averages - even if you drop the top 10 from them - to be above the average for the entire population. Because the lists matter.

However, lets say there were 20 people at the event with lists that were the same (counting the top 10). In theory, if all 10 top-10s from last year played this year, and were in that list of 20 people, you should see an average of 5 repeat top-10 placers.

If there were 30 such lists, you'd expect only about 3 of last years' top-10 to be in this year's top-10.

If there were 50 such lists, having more than 2 of last year's top 10 be in this year's top 10 would be notable.

The fact remains that the same people tend to place top 10 across multiple events, often with different armies. Further, more often than not, most of the top-10 lists are the same as the majority of the other top-50 lists at large events.

Clearly, while the list building is important, some players place higher more frequently than others with the same lists. This strongly suggests matchups are determined more by player skill than coin flip. List building is more important than either, but player skill still tops coin flip.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Necron,
I'm not saying that it's not list building. I'm saying that it's not list building *alone*.

I'd argue that if you took at frequently-top-10 player, and put them up against (me, xenos, probably you, etc), with identical or equally powerful lists, the frequently-top-10 player would win more often than not. As in, more frequently than a coin flip.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Xeno,
What part of "List construction is a biasing factor" did you read as "List construction is *not* a biasing factor"?

Without actual statistics this is all anecdotal.

The statistical facts are that certain combinations of codexes make it to the top tables consistently.

While it may certainly be true that these players would have the same outcome with other lists, there are no actual facts supporting it.

In fact given how list building is a strong aspect of the game it is likely that top players recognize which combination of units five the greatest points/value in the game and have chosen their lists based on that whereas other players may have units they like mixed into their force.

It is further likely top players recognize which units these are in other lists when they make there list.

I contend this is a large factor in what makes those top players good.

The more that certain lists and combos rise to the top, the more often mirror matchups occur. The best players consistently win these matchups, given their consistent performance over the years. This is solid evidence that player skill is a huge factor in 40k.

You have to bring a top-tier list to be competitive at the highest level but there is a lot of skill involved in piloting such a list well enough to win. Certainly more skill than is overcome by any number of dice rolls.

People who are arguing that it is all about the list - do you honestly think that you could do as well with these lists as the tourney winners? I posit that you could not.

The fact that the tournament standings at big events isn't simply 'everyone with this list placed top 10, everyone with the next best list placed next 10, etc.' is proof of this.

So uh, when do ya'll think it's coming out? I am almost certain it won't be in September at this rate.

 beir wrote:
The more that certain lists and combos rise to the top, the more often mirror matchups occur. The best players consistently win these matchups, given their consistent performance over the years. This is solid evidence that player skill is a huge factor in 40k.

You have to bring a top-tier list to be competitive at the highest level but there is a lot of skill involved in piloting such a list well enough to win. Certainly more skill than is overcome by any number of dice rolls.

People who are arguing that it is all about the list - do you honestly think that you could do as well with these lists as the tourney winners? I posit that you could not.

The fact that the tournament standings at big events isn't simply 'everyone with this list placed top 10, everyone with the next best list placed next 10, etc.' is proof of this.

I am not suggesting the player skills is not an element, I am suggesting it is not the main element. If player skill was the main element we would see a common name on BCP winning a major event with Necrons, or Tau. That we don't see this is highly indicative that list is the major factor in victory. Certainly this is not to say player skill isn't a strong factor, however skill beyond list making appears be secondary given the lack of variety in codexes we see make it to top tables at major events.

 beir wrote:
The more that certain lists and combos rise to the top, the more often mirror matchups occur. The best players consistently win these matchups, given their consistent performance over the years. This is solid evidence that player skill is a huge factor in 40k.

You have to bring a top-tier list to be competitive at the highest level but there is a lot of skill involved in piloting such a list well enough to win. Certainly more skill than is overcome by any number of dice rolls.

People who are arguing that it is all about the list - do you honestly think that you could do as well with these lists as the tourney winners? I posit that you could not.

The fact that the tournament standings at big events isn't simply 'everyone with this list placed top 10, everyone with the next best list placed next 10, etc.' is proof of this.

A list matters more than player skill in reading the board state; identifying key units in your codex that serve as units that do more for their points is mandatory in performing well.

If I threw 10 identical players with 1 identical list at each other guess what happens. Someone wins. Because there are dice involved in this game.

Lists are the largest factor in whether someone wins or not, then player experience/skill/knowledge, then the dice rolls.

Someone in the top 10 isn't bringing a substandard list. So to say only player skill matters ignores the fact that all these people are good enough to realize there are simply objectively better units than others.

 vaklor4 wrote:
So uh, when do ya'll think it's coming out? I am almost certain it won't be in September at this rate.

Friday

 bullyboy wrote:

 vaklor4 wrote:
So uh, when do ya'll think it's coming out? I am almost certain it won't be in September at this rate.

Friday

Not according to the Warhammer TV schedule

 vaklor4 wrote:
So uh, when do ya'll think it's coming out? I am almost certain it won't be in September at this rate.

September 31st, definitely.

 vaklor4 wrote:
So uh, when do ya'll think it's coming out? I am almost certain it won't be in September at this rate.

Following the premise of them needing three weeks following Nova (writing, testing and translating I'd guess) like they did earlier in the year, the 9/26 is the soonest we'd see it (and the day I most expect to see it).

Emperor willing; 2018.

 beir wrote:
The more that certain lists and combos rise to the top, the more often mirror matchups occur. The best players consistently win these matchups, given their consistent performance over the years. This is solid evidence that player skill is a huge factor in 40k.

You have to bring a top-tier list to be competitive at the highest level but there is a lot of skill involved in piloting such a list well enough to win. Certainly more skill than is overcome by any number of dice rolls.

People who are arguing that it is all about the list - do you honestly think that you could do as well with these lists as the tourney winners? I posit that you could not.

The fact that the tournament standings at big events isn't simply 'everyone with this list placed top 10, everyone with the next best list placed next 10, etc.' is proof of this.

The extent of "skill" in 40k is target priority, deployment and spamming the best couple units from soup combo's. Get a tourney winning list and give it to someone who doesn't know how to use it? Of course they won't be on par with a 'skilled' person because again, it all comes down to target priority and understanding combos.

8th Edition is all about who rolls the most the dice. The player who usually wins is the one who knows which order and against what to roll those dice - that is the real extent of skill in the current state of the game. The top tier codexes and/or soup used by the top 10 etc play a huge part and to pretend otherwise is disingenuous.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

tneva82 wrote:

 NurglesR0T wrote:
Charging points for Relics or free Relics is a moot point discussion because you'll always end up with 1 or 2 that are good, and the rest being useless by comparison. When was the last time you saw a DG list use the Plague Skull on a character? Imagine charging 25 points for that.. lol

They are getting better at it overall compared to previous editions to be fair

Maybe if the other relics would cost more than 25 pts you would have more reason to take it. But when it's free there's no point in not taking the best one possible.

They've been there, done that. Guess what happens when they charge points for relics? The best 1 or 2 are always taken and the rest are trash and "overcosted". The problem isn't relics being free or costed, it's that they are never balanced against each other - It's been that way for 20 years.

 NurglesR0T wrote:

 beir wrote:
The more that certain lists and combos rise to the top, the more often mirror matchups occur. The best players consistently win these matchups, given their consistent performance over the years. This is solid evidence that player skill is a huge factor in 40k.

You have to bring a top-tier list to be competitive at the highest level but there is a lot of skill involved in piloting such a list well enough to win. Certainly more skill than is overcome by any number of dice rolls.

People who are arguing that it is all about the list - do you honestly think that you could do as well with these lists as the tourney winners? I posit that you could not.

The fact that the tournament standings at big events isn't simply 'everyone with this list placed top 10, everyone with the next best list placed next 10, etc.' is proof of this.

The extent of "skill" in 40k is target priority, deployment and spamming the best couple units from soup combo's. Get a tourney winning list and give it to someone who doesn't know how to use it? Of course they won't be on par with a 'skilled' person because again, it all comes down to target priority and understanding combos.

8th Edition is all about who rolls the most the dice. The player who usually wins is the one who knows which order and against what to roll those dice - that is the real extent of skill in the current state of the game. The top tier codexes and/or soup used by the top 10 etc play a huge part and to pretend otherwise is disingenuous.

Bear in mind all these comments re: skill in 40k were made in response to Xeno's posts, which basically claimed that there is zero skill in high level competitive 40k and matches are basically a coin flip (or that hes really awesome and would have a 50% winrate against all of the best players in the game, who knows).

No one's being disingenuous and claiming that there isn't actually any luck involved in a dice game, but make sure you read them in that context and you'll see why they are written as such.

I'll concede to that point - my mistake if I took other comments out of context. There is definitely more to skill than just a "coin flip" but I still stand by my point too

Luck mitigation (namely proper use of rerolls to smooth out the bell curve in your favor) is a skill as well. I mean anyone can copy a list, but knowing the nuances in playing it properly to make it fun like a well oiled bolter takes more skill than just "pick target, roll dice, win". I've seen a lot of claims of lists that "couldn't be beat" but in the end if you play them poorly it doesn't matter how good your list is or how well it stacks the odds in your favor if you get tabled every game.

Audustum wrote:
While it's true we should all get a say, balancing it at the top end balances it for everyone. If you're losing matches at the lower levels, we can't necessarily attribute it to balance because it could also just be your own newbness showing. Conversely, you can solve any issue you're having by improving as a player.

When the guys at the top are actually playing 40k - and not the 40k ITC Edition - then we can talk about using their tournament results as data

Tyel wrote:
There is a lot of skill in 40k. The dice mean there is inherently more luck than SC2 - but I'd argue its considerably less influenced by luck than MTG/Hearthstone.

Good players get ranked in tournaments sufficiently consistently that it stretches credibility they don't possess some knowledge we can define as "skill" and are instead just lucky. Part of that is bringing a list which is good - but there is also using it correctly. Unlike certain card decks while Imperial Soup might stack the odds in your favour it doesn't play itself.

Based on reports over the last year, such skills include:
- Ability to netlist a broken army (and learn to play it well)
- Ability to play by the house rules of various events
- Ability to slow play
- Ability to trap your opponent into breaching RAW due to your own slow play
- Ability to manipulate dice which are recording game state information
- Ability to use a "stretchy" tape measure
- Ability to browbeat other players into accepting your interpretation of the rules

Karol wrote:
Eldar get a change to how their soup rules work every FAQ, maybe even more often. Yet they are still one of the top armies out there, so what kind of a FAQs are those?

They're errata, but GW appear determined to call their errata documents "FAQs" instead, for some perverse reason.

 vaklor4 wrote:
So uh, when do ya'll think it's coming out? I am almost certain it won't be in September at this rate.

I think that not-September is a safe bet, given they're down to three working days (including today) to release it within. I lean towards October, probably the first week or two, but I've nothing to back up that feeling.

 Dysartes wrote:
I think that not-September is a safe bet, given they're down to three working days (including today) to release it within. I lean towards October, probably the first week or two, but I've nothing to back up that feeling.

Yep. Alas it looks like they miss their own deadlines again. Hopefully they learn from this and name them from now on spring and autumn faq's. There's no real downside for that(they can still internally try to aim to release them on specific month) but it looks hell of a lot better for them than constantly missing deadlines they themselves set well in advance.

Then again not in a rush to see what models GW wants players to buy next to replace existing models.