ROAR Future

[Actionjick]

First...a hearty shout out to JR and everyone else who has contributed valuable resources to our hobby (ROAR, VASL, ASL Players Ratings, AREA, VASL, ASL Armory, Desperation Morale website, VASL, Klass with Klas, and many more I can't think of at the moment). Bravo Zulu.

Regarding a lack of ROAR balance...some of those scenarios are indeed mutts. However, some of them can be far more balanced than they appear. Yes, 14 playings (11-3) is statistically insignificant, but I understand why someone might raise an eyebrow. That said nobody (including me, and I'm a mathematician) is interested in a debate on what can be properly inferred from some skewed initial results.

My point is this...for some of those canine candidates the culprit is a steep learning curve. ROAR can't tell you which 11-3 record is a dog, and which one shows that the initial playings didn't represent a complete grasp of the challenge that was presented. This is not a criticism (there's no way ROAR can do that); it's just a recommendation that you should temper any preliminary ROAR feedback with your own assessment of the scenario. Steep learning curve scenarios will always appear unbalanced initially.

Nice, some good points.

 

[Actionjick]

First...a hearty shout out to JR and everyone else who has contributed valuable resources to our hobby (ROAR, VASL, ASL Players Ratings, AREA, VASL, ASL Armory, Desperation Morale website, VASL, Klass with Klas, and many more I can't think of at the moment). Bravo Zulu.

Regarding a lack of ROAR balance...some of those scenarios are indeed mutts. However, some of them can be far more balanced than they appear. Yes, 14 playings (11-3) is statistically insignificant, but I understand why someone might raise an eyebrow. That said nobody (including me, and I'm a mathematician) is interested in a debate on what can be properly inferred from some skewed initial results.

My point is this...for some of those canine candidates the culprit is a steep learning curve. ROAR can't tell you which 11-3 record is a dog, and which one shows that the initial playings didn't represent a complete grasp of the challenge that was presented. This is not a criticism (there's no way ROAR can do that); it's just a recommendation that you should temper any preliminary ROAR feedback with your own assessment of the scenario. Steep learning curve scenarios will always appear unbalanced initially.

Your point about some scenario's having a learning curve is very valid. It's my impression that many players today don't play a scenario multiple times which is a shame. I believe replaying a scenario multiple times is a great way to refine tactics and learn the game. As you said an unbalanced scenario may just need a different approach or better use of assets. Pondering why you got your posterior handed to you a great way to pass the time and may just turn the tables next playing.

All that being said I understand why many players want to play as many different scenarios as possible, especially if playing time is limited. To each his own and as long as you're playing that's the important thing.

 

[boylermaker]

My point is this...for some of those canine candidates the culprit is a steep learning curve.

So, sure. I don't really disagree.

BUT, if you can grok a scenario by looking at it without playing it, there is no value to you in looking to ROAR to figure out whether or not the scenario is balanced.

If, like me, you have no idea what you are doing, then looking at ROAR can help you out. But for those of us in that category, "having a steep learning curve" is the same as "unbalanced"--both mean "we inferior players can't win with the disfavored side". So it might not be a dog for everybody, but that doesn't make it a fun scenario for us to play.

 

[Actionjick]

So, sure. I don't really disagree.

BUT, if you can grok a scenario by looking at it without playing it, there is no value to you in looking to ROAR to figure out whether or not the scenario is balanced.

If, like me, you have no idea what you are doing, then looking at ROAR can help you out. But for those of us in that category, "having a steep learning curve" is the same as "unbalanced"--both mean "we inferior players can't win with the disfavored side". So it might not be a dog for everybody, but that doesn't make it a fun scenario for us to play.

I'm not sure how many players can fully grok a scenario by just looking at it. Beyond a general impression I certainly couldn't.

I'll have to think about a scenario having a steep learning curve equaling unbalanced. I understand your point though.

Where I do disagree is the point that an unbalanced scenario can be a dog or not fun to play because it is unbalanced. That seems to be too dependent on what the player perceives as fun. IMO a scenario can be wildly skewed but still a blast to play as the underdog. That's just me though.

I'll talk this over tonight with the Captain and the Colonel.

 

[Actionjick]

So, sure. I don't really disagree.

BUT, if you can grok a scenario by looking at it without playing it, there is no value to you in looking to ROAR to figure out whether or not the scenario is balanced.

If, like me, you have no idea what you are doing, then looking at ROAR can help you out. But for those of us in that category, "having a steep learning curve" is the same as "unbalanced"--both mean "we inferior players can't win with the disfavored side". So it might not be a dog for everybody, but that doesn't make it a fun scenario for us to play.

Inferior player?!?
Lol I seriously doubt that Sir!! There are some players that are definitely really good but, and perhaps I'm being politically correct, I wouldn't consider anyone who plays ASL as an inferior player. Then again I don't believe in balance, aside from A 26.4, so take that opinion with a grain of salt. Sounds nice though!

 

[hongkongwargamer]

I tend to take entire packs and play scenarios front to back. I am not in the habit of looking at ROAR unless my opponent does. Otherwise we will just roll for sides or take turns attacking/ defending. I do however, see the importance of using ROAR data for tournaments. Hence I enter my games into ROAR religiously aside from using it as a means to track my playing history.

Plus I imagine if I am a designer there's a certain satisfaction in seeing my scenario played.

 

[Actionjick]

I tend to take entire packs and play scenarios front to back. I am not in the habit of looking at ROAR unless my opponent does. Otherwise we will just roll for sides or take turns attacking/ defending. I do however, see the importance of using ROAR data for tournaments. Hence I enter my games into ROAR religiously aside from using it as a means to track my playing history.

Plus I imagine if I am a designer there's a certain satisfaction in seeing my scenario played.

I like your style of picking scenarios to play. Very bitd.

 

[The Purist]

Like many I report all games to ROAR and began doing the same to the ASL Archive as soon as I became aware of it last summer when I began to use VASL. I find the information useful for spotting a trend but realise that the win/loss ratio can be affected by all the factors mentioned above. A poor ROAR rating does not automatically disqualify a scenario from play if it looks like fun (many of the classics 'monsters' fall into this category) but I did disqualify a large number of scenarios from the recent AA3 VASL tournament to avoid balance problems. Of the three scenarios played they all landed almost squarely in the groove that ROAR was pointing to.