NAF World Headquarters
General - Tournaments at TR100 vs. TR110 - discuss.
Indigo - Mar 12, 2003 - 06:21 AM
Post subject: Tournaments at TR100 vs. TR110 - discuss.
Heh made it sound like an exam question 
My opinion is that elves seemed to do OK at the BB on TR 100, so is there much call to have the extra 100k?
Convince me!
Lucy - Mar 12, 2003 - 06:36 AM
Post subject:
Although I prefer 100, Darkelves, Chaos and some others could definitely use the extra 10. Woodelves do perform better with 10K extra as well.....
Lucy
Longshot - Mar 12, 2003 - 06:38 AM
Post subject:
elves are not ok at 100K but they are with 110K.
Look, how many elf team where at BB? not that much. Some like me took WE because we didnt want to take stars but we need something to go against stars. DE and HE made a bad tourny! and WE were well represented but not that much.
The other team are already good at 100k but could have more opportnuties at 110K, so this is not a problem for them.
i prefer 110K maybe something between 100 and 110K would be exactly balanced.
Indigo - Mar 12, 2003 - 06:49 AM
Post subject:
but does giving regular teams that beat WE/HE/DE at TR100 an extra 100k not make them dominate even more at TR100? They can have a big guy, or more re-rolls/players
Surely it just increases the lead of the other teams by the same amount the elf teams catch up?
Indigo - Mar 12, 2003 - 06:53 AM
Post subject:
Another point is that if Star Players are banned, then would this not create a more even match up at TR100? It did look to me like the best performing teams tended to have at least one star player. Is raising the start point to TR110 the answer, or is removing stars the best solution?
Longshot - Mar 12, 2003 - 07:16 AM
Post subject:
No, Playing against an Ogre more is not a big deal for elves, but having a RR more is!
TR110 with no Star players is the way i prefer.
Sputnik - Mar 12, 2003 - 08:17 AM
Post subject:
At the BB elves lacked both, cheap players and a competitive star player. You can see that the top ranking is basically formed of the teams with the best stars (Griff, Luthor, Hthark).
It would be interesting to see the result table with 1.000 k /no stars but the same amount of races present. (By the way: does there exist any list with number of teams of the specific races?)
I believe that skaven would be much more presented in the top 20 under that format... 
Elves could do well under 1.000 k but obviously get the bonus kick with these extra 10k making them even better. :lol:Humans on the other hand have cheap players and can then max out on positional players and afford an ogre which is also pretty nice. 
However, IMO it's not only a question of how many players/rr/ff I can get for that specific tournament format but also which tie breakers etc. If the first tie breaker is scored TD, it might be better to go for a high scoring offence and win 4:3 instead of 2:0 
. See the tie breaker discussion elsewhere.
Moreover, the result is influenced by the skills/traits can you get.
Anyway I will go with Deathwing here who said he liked the little differences each tournament format has which makes them having the own flair.
Sputnik
Deathwing - Mar 12, 2003 - 10:45 AM
Post subject:
As Sputnik pointed out, I think 'a universal tourney format' would be a 'bad thing'tm. Flavour is important, particularly when you travel to different countries to play.
Back on track, neither of the 1.1M tournies I played in this year was won by Elves (or indeed had a lot of Elf teams towards the top end), so the case that it tips the balance in favour of elves doesn't hold water in my experience. I don't think I'd play Helfs in a 1M environment, I would (and have) in a 1.1M.
I believe you'll get a greater spread of teams at 1.1M. Personally I'll always look at a ruleset and take what I think suits the format rather than sticking with a single race and being advantaged/disadvantaged by any particular ruleset.
Norbor - Mar 12, 2003 - 12:51 PM
Post subject:
So does the 1.1m format benifit mainly elves? Who else could / would it benifit?
skummy - Mar 12, 2003 - 01:44 PM
Post subject:
I'd say it benefits the cheap skilled teams just as much. If humans could fill their rosters, get lots of rerolls, have an apothecary and a big guy. Skaven could do pretty much the same thing.
Bevan - Mar 12, 2003 - 02:55 PM
Post subject: 1,100,000 is better
Our family has figures for almost every team but we prefer elves so we agonised for weeks over which team to take to CanCon. We were travelling 1,000km to this event so wanted to put up a reasonable showing. 
Eventually we took Amazon and Skaven because we believed that they had far better 100TR teams possible than any elf team. I think that all teams would be beter starting at TR110, but elves would not have to start with 8 to 10 line elves.
My second choice was a Chaos team with 1 CW and 10 beastmen. This was in order to get what I considered an acceptable number of rerolls. An extra 10 TR would make this a far more interesting team to play.
Redfang - Mar 14, 2003 - 06:35 AM
Post subject:
I'm all for TR110 tourneys. Even if you don't play elves/chaos it gives you a slightly-better-than-normal-starting-team that you can adapt a little better to your own personal taste and style, and that has a lot better and more secure "feel" to it.
Elves and Chaos (and similar teams) profit more from the extra 100k, because they have always just too little money to buy the things they need as a competitve starting team, while humies and similar teams have already got a very good team and can only improve on it by adding more of what they already have. Therefore profitting less.
Doubleskulls - Mar 14, 2003 - 10:19 AM
Post subject:
The following tables show the results according to race for NAF matches grouped into TR110 tournaments and TR100. Unfortunately I don't know which tournaments included star players. No chaos or goblin teams were played in by NAF coaches the TR 110 tournaments.
Lizards are the obvious gainers - coming from 3rd bottom to top. Amazons and Orcs seem to be the big losers. While, perhaps surprisingly the Elves didn't move around very much at all.
Code:
TR 110
Pld W D L W% D% L% For Ag Net
Lizardmen 31 19 6 6 0.61 0.19 0.19 69 39 30
Norse 20 10 1 9 0.50 0.05 0.45 34 40 -6
Undead 33 16 10 7 0.48 0.30 0.21 49 35 14
Chaos Dwarves 7 3 1 3 0.43 0.14 0.43 13 10 3
Wood Elves 23 10 1 12 0.43 0.04 0.52 40 48 -8
Skaven 46 19 10 17 0.41 0.22 0.37 92 83 9
Halflings 8 3 2 3 0.38 0.25 0.38 13 10 3
Humans 43 14 15 14 0.33 0.35 0.33 60 64 -4
High Elves 19 6 5 8 0.32 0.26 0.42 41 34 7
Dwarves 27 8 6 13 0.30 0.22 0.48 29 47 -18
Dark Elves 20 6 3 11 0.30 0.15 0.55 36 45 -9
Orc 38 10 9 19 0.26 0.24 0.50 45 63 -18
Amazons 5 1 1 3 0.20 0.20 0.60 5 8 -3
TR 100
Pld W D L W% D% L% For Ag Net
Chaos Dwarves 58 37 1 20 0.64 0.02 0.34 92 60 32
Undead 72 41 11 20 0.57 0.15 0.28 104 78 26
Skaven 103 49 15 39 0.48 0.15 0.38 213 176 37
Amazons 33 16 2 15 0.48 0.06 0.45 51 46 5
Humans 63 27 6 30 0.43 0.10 0.48 101 97 4
Orc 115 48 19 48 0.42 0.17 0.42 148 164 -16
Wood Elves 54 22 13 19 0.41 0.24 0.35 119 101 18
Norse 45 18 4 23 0.40 0.09 0.51 56 64 -8
High Elves 38 14 8 16 0.37 0.21 0.42 72 77 -5
Dwarves 81 28 17 36 0.35 0.21 0.44 110 126 -16
Chaos 38 13 8 17 0.34 0.21 0.45 48 61 -13
Dark Elves 20 6 5 9 0.30 0.25 0.45 30 30 0
Lizardmen 39 11 8 20 0.28 0.21 0.51 49 74 -25
Goblins 15 4 0 11 0.27 0.00 0.73 15 34 -19
Halflings 18 2 3 13 0.11 0.17 0.72 17 37 -20
Longshot - Mar 14, 2003 - 11:04 AM
Post subject:
Fine stats,cheers.
But you told us, we have to think with stars allowed or not: that's a big difference, more than 10TR net
Doubleskulls - Mar 14, 2003 - 12:26 PM
Post subject:
Well does anyone know if the Underworld Cup, Pandemonium Cup, CanCon and Galadrieth Goblet allowed star players?
If so I can produce stats separating out the stars from the non-stars.
Deathwing - Mar 14, 2003 - 12:37 PM
Post subject:
Doubleskulls wrote:
Well does anyone know if the Underworld Cup, Pandemonium Cup, CanCon and Galadrieth Goblet allowed star players?
If so I can produce stats separating out the stars from the non-stars.
AFAIK, the first three didn't...dunno about Fanaticon, got a feeling they may have...
But at the end of the day, you're only going to be separating formats that allowed stars, rather than results from rosters containing stars.
skummy - Mar 14, 2003 - 01:06 PM
Post subject:
That's true, but I think he's looking to see the winning percentage of teams in star player environments, so if he's got enough data it shouldn't matter too much.
Doubleskulls - Mar 17, 2003 - 03:01 AM
Post subject:
Its pretty conclusive that CDs & Undead are good without stars, but humans just plummet.
TR 100 Teams without Stars
Code:
Pld W D L W% D% L% For Ag Net
Amazons 15 8 0 7 0.53 0.00 0.47 26 23 3
Chaos 15 6 2 7 0.40 0.13 0.47 19 28 -9
Chaos Dwarves 11 8 1 2 0.73 0.09 0.18 19 11 8
Dark Elves 7 3 1 3 0.43 0.14 0.43 12 9 3
Dwarves 47 15 9 23 0.32 0.19 0.49 64 77 -13
Goblins 4 2 0 2 0.50 0.00 0.50 4 7 -3
High Elves 28 10 5 13 0.36 0.18 0.46 54 61 -7
Humans 18 4 0 14 0.22 0.00 0.78 24 42 -18
Lizardmen 13 4 2 7 0.31 0.15 0.54 20 27 -7
Norse 25 10 3 12 0.40 0.12 0.48 33 35 -2
Orc 37 19 4 14 0.51 0.11 0.38 60 50 10
Skaven 51 30 3 18 0.59 0.06 0.35 121 87 34
Undead 15 9 0 6 0.60 0.00 0.40 20 21 -1
Wood Elves 14 6 2 6 0.43 0.14 0.43 26 24 2
100 TR Stars
Code:
Pld W D L W% D% L% For Ag Net
Amazons 18 8 2 8 0.44 0.11 0.44 25 23 2
Chaos 18 6 6 6 0.33 0.33 0.33 21 21 0
Chaos Dwarves 36 21 0 15 0.58 0.00 0.42 56 39 17
Dark Elves 13 3 4 6 0.23 0.31 0.46 18 21 -3
Dwarves 30 11 8 11 0.37 0.27 0.37 40 43 -3
Goblins 11 2 0 9 0.18 0.00 0.82 11 27 -16
Halflings 15 1 3 11 0.07 0.20 0.73 16 33 -17
High Elves 6 2 3 1 0.33 0.50 0.17 8 7 1
Humans 45 23 6 16 0.51 0.13 0.36 77 55 22
Lizardmen 26 7 6 13 0.27 0.23 0.50 29 47 -18
Norse 14 4 1 9 0.29 0.07 0.64 16 24 -8
Orc 74 28 15 31 0.38 0.20 0.42 84 108 -24
Skaven 52 19 12 21 0.37 0.23 0.40 92 89 3
Undead 52 30 11 11 0.58 0.21 0.21 77 49 28
Wood Elves 40 16 11 13 0.40 0.28 0.32 93 77 16
Longshot - Mar 17, 2003 - 03:43 AM
Post subject:
Chaos dwarves seems better without stars....strange imho
Doubleskulls - Mar 17, 2003 - 06:13 AM
Post subject:
I think we all have to bear in mind that the samples are very small. 11 games with CDs - over 3 tournaments isn't that wide a sample of coaches. Give it another 6 months and we may have worthwhile data to plough through. At the moment goblins are 6th best no stars team!
Doubleskulls - Mar 17, 2003 - 08:18 AM
Post subject:
Anyway back to TR 100 vs TR 110.
This bit shows the improvement in TR 110 against TR 100 tourneys that didn't involve stars (so + means better in TR110). The outstanding fact is (given small sample sizes) that it didn't make much difference to the performance of the Elven teams.
Code:
W% D% L%
Lizardmen 0.30 0.04 -0.35
Humans 0.11 0.35 -0.45
Norse 0.10 -0.07 -0.03
Wood Elves 0.00 -0.10 0.09
Dwarves -0.02 0.03 -0.01
High Elves -0.04 0.08 -0.04
Undead -0.12 0.30 -0.19
Dark Elves -0.13 0.01 0.12
Skaven -0.18 0.16 0.02
Orc -0.25 0.13 0.12
Chaos Dwarves -0.30 0.05 0.25
Amazons -0.33 0.20 0.13
TR 100 - No stars
Totals for all competitions
Code:
Pld W D L W% D% L% For Ag Net
Amazons 15 8 0 7 0.53 0.00 0.47 26 23 3
Chaos 15 6 2 7 0.40 0.13 0.47 19 28 -9
Chaos Dwarves 11 8 1 2 0.73 0.09 0.18 19 11 8
Dark Elves 7 3 1 3 0.43 0.14 0.43 12 9 3
Dwarves 47 15 9 23 0.32 0.19 0.49 64 77 -13
Goblins 4 2 0 2 0.50 0.00 0.50 4 7 -3
High Elves 28 10 5 13 0.36 0.18 0.46 54 61 -7
Humans 18 4 0 14 0.22 0.00 0.78 24 42 -18
Lizardmen 13 4 2 7 0.31 0.15 0.54 20 27 -7
Norse 25 10 3 12 0.40 0.12 0.48 33 35 -2
Orc 37 19 4 14 0.51 0.11 0.38 60 50 10
Skaven 51 30 3 18 0.59 0.06 0.35 121 87 34
Undead 15 9 0 6 0.60 0.00 0.40 20 21 -1
Wood Elves 14 6 2 6 0.43 0.14 0.43 26 24 2
TR 110
Code:
Pld W D L W% D% L% For Ag Net
Amazons 5 1 1 3 0.20 0.20 0.60 5 8 -3
Chaos Dwarves 7 3 1 3 0.43 0.14 0.43 13 10 3
Dark Elves 20 6 3 11 0.30 0.15 0.55 36 45 -9
Dwarves 27 8 6 13 0.30 0.22 0.48 29 47 -18
Halflings 8 3 2 3 0.38 0.25 0.38 13 10 3
High Elves 19 6 5 8 0.32 0.26 0.42 41 34 7
Humans 43 14 15 14 0.33 0.35 0.33 60 64 -4
Lizardmen 31 19 6 6 0.61 0.19 0.19 69 39 30
Norse 20 10 1 9 0.50 0.05 0.45 34 40 -6
Orc 38 10 9 19 0.26 0.24 0.50 45 63 -18
Skaven 46 19 10 17 0.41 0.22 0.37 92 83 9
Undead 33 16 10 7 0.48 0.30 0.21 49 35 14
Wood Elves 23 10 1 12 0.43 0.04 0.52 40 48 -8
Bevan - Mar 17, 2003 - 03:25 PM
Post subject:
Doubleskulls wrote:
This bit shows the improvement in TR 110 against TR 100 tourneys that didn't involve stars (so + means better in TR110). The outstanding fact is (given small sample sizes) that it didn't make much difference to the performance of the Elven teams.
Thanks. It is clear that TR110 (without stars) gives the most balanced result.
I scored each race with 2 points for a win, 1 for a draw and 0 for a loss, then worked out the average points per game played for each race. Finally I took the standard deviation (S.D.) for all the races in that table.
TR100 with Stars S.D. = 0.30
TR100 no Stars S.D. = 0.25
TR110 no Stars S.D. = 0.20
The lower the S.D. the more even the distribution (of wins, draws and losses).
So the high S.D. for TR100 with Stars shows that it is biased strongly towards some teams and against others. The low S.D. for TR110 games shows a lower bias towards or against any teams.