ROAR - scenario balance - etc.

[Robin Reeve]

On the French ASL forum, there has been a discussion about the use of ROAR statistics and about the necessity of scenario balance.
Some players seem quite indifferent about the fact that a scenario is balanced or not - being more interested in "having a good time" than in a situation that gives the same win opportunities to both players.
Besides, there are also critics about the facts that under a certain number of games, statistics are quite useless - which makes sense - and that people who give their gaming results to ROAR may be bad or good players and that ROAR statistics can at most be just an approximative indication.
I just would like to know what are the feelings in the English speaking community?

 

[Bryan Holtby]

The same. Unless you can have no variables (good players vs bad/new players)in the equation any result you get is not accurate. Not to mention how many ppl didnt read/comprehend the SSR's properly, resigned early, etc. For example, BV scenarios were extensively playtested but they are usually played by people just getting into ASL and thus prone to rule misunderstandings and such.

ROAR should give you a good idea on the balance of a particular scenario if there are more than 50 playings, anything substantially less than that should be ignored.

 

[Roy]

I believe in ROAR.

That said, I like to look at the numbers of any scenario I play, but I only use it to help pick scenarios of live and on-line tournaments I'm in.

As for casual games between friends, it doesn't matter. Pick it out, and I'll play it. :cheeky:

 

[The Purist]

I use ROAR more as a record system for scenarios I have played more than its win/lose function. I have seen more than few scenarios that ROAR declares as favouring one side only to have the opposite experience. It's a guide at best.

 

[Robin Reeve]

If ROAR is nearly useless, what is the use of a record?
I mean, everybody can keep his personal record and does not need a global one.
The only use of ROAR would be just to see which scenarios are the prefered ones...
So be it?

 

['Ol Fezziwig]

I tend to view ROAR records as more specious than helpful. Now, don't get me wrong, at times knowing the plus/minus of a scenario is of some value. What perturbs me is the oft quick condemnation of a scenario due to initial ROAR reportings (remember Priests on the Line & Ultimate Treachery?) leading to the slavish devotees of ROAR records to refuse to even consider playing certain scenarios.
It seems the records themselves serve more to show what is/has been popular than of play value itself. This tends to manifest itself in the makeup of tourney lists, where 'balance issues' rather than the individual scenario merits hold more sway. In tourneys where lists are the rule (as opposed to 'open' tourneys) this can lead to the same tired scenarios being recycled year after year due to the alleged 'balance' of a scenario. What ever happened to the great equalizer: player skill? :skull:

 

[Sgt. Przybylo]

Does it REALLY matter?

IMHO, balance doesnt matter. I play to play, and take my lumps. I can certainly lose to a great player in a scenario where the balance is overwhelmingly in my favor. ROAR is a useful read, but really, we all talk about how we love ASL for the fun, yet some are hooked on the concept of "balance".

Just 2 cents...to each his own.

 

['Ol Fezziwig]

I think that's the key: ROAR should be a -tool- in the decision making process, not the be-all-end-all. I think some forget ASL is just a hobby, after all, not a measure of one's worth as a human being.

 

[Robin Reeve]

I do understand the "fun" argument : I am not obsessed by balance to the point to go and systematically look at ROAR stats - though, I do it after play, to have an idea about other players' results...

The rejection of balance as something important rises an question : Why do designers try at their best to create balanced scenarios ?
Fine tuning VCs, OBs and timings would seem to cost too much energy and time for something people are not interested in.
For an example, playtesting scenarios would be useless, if a majority of players are not interested in balance, wouldn't it?

Balance seems something usefull to me, in the sense it gives the same chances to both sides - thus enhancing "player skill".
Playing chess with one side having three queens and the other only pawns would not interest many gamers... or would it?
Now, is the ASL system too dominated by chance, so that balance is not an issue?
It is not a question of proving oneself, I think.
Just looking for a challenging game for both sides - even a unbalanced situation can be balanced with good VCs...

 

[Priest]

I have never liked ROAR because I've always felt that new and bad players would skew the stats.

 

['Ol Fezziwig]

I think my view is skewed by those who -do- slavishly pick scenarios solely based on ROAR w/l and those who, for lack of a more discrete term, 'do anything' to win a scenario.
I'd not toss out balance as an issue, despite the implication I may have seemingly given. Perhaps, this, too, is based on some of my playtest experiences in the past. (blatant personal opinion follows)
I look at PT as a way of stretching the bounds, as it were, of a scenario: are there multiple attack/defense options? Can a longer or less likely route be more viable on the attack, perhaps rendering some of the positional defenses less useful?
I was fortunate enough to be on the PT team for "an eagerly awaited ASL project", where I felt the actual PT win/loss was less important than whether the scenarios gave enough time or means to carry out the appointed tasks. I discounted totally wild dice swings (either pro/con) as a factor (though not in the playings themselves) in scenario playability, something I didn't feel was done in some other testers evaluations. This doesn't mean, nor would I imply, that I'm 'more correct' than anyone else, merely that I differed on evaluative criterium from my fellows.
Typically, I believe most scenarios are playtested stringently enough to give either side a chance to prevail. Some may have a tighter margin of error or a steeper learning curve, but I believe the opportunity lies within most scenarios to succeed.
Just as an example, I had wanted to play Chestys' Turn for ages, yet noone in our formerly active group would give it a shot because it had been labeled "an unwinnable (for the USMC) dog". I literally had to travel to Winter Offensive (which, due to abominable road conditions, was literally at risk of life and limb) to find someone willing to give it a go. (yeah, I lost, but it was a -blast-). This may be an extreme example and not representative of the ASL community as a whole, but the mindset is present.
Balance, on the whole, can be a fleeting mistress: sometimes we play like a 6+1, at others, a 10-2...

 

[rdw5150]

"If ROAR is nearly useless, what is the use of a record?"


Where did you get this? I do not think anyone said ROAR was useless. Perhaps I missed something.

I think most people use ROAR as a guide and not the "be all, end all" when deciding on a scenario.

Personaly, I just use it to see if a given scenario has the possibility of being a dog. But a scenario had to have a fair number of playing for me to take the win/loss record seriously, say at least 40 or so playings.

If someone wants to really play a scenario, and the ROAR record seems to indicate a "dog", I ask for the balance.

Peace

Roger

 

[zgrose]

Most people don't understand statistics and therefore make inappropriate conclusions based on the ROAR win-loss score.

I do agree that a obsession for 50:50 balance is a waste of energy. But part of that maybe be a chicken and egg problem with players rejecting scenarios that seem (see above) unbalanced. ROAR will be more accurate as more playings are recorded but people need to play the "dogs" too to make sure they are really dogs or ROAR will never have a statistically significant sample size.

 

[Josh]

ZGrose, I really like your answer as I am taking stats presently and you are totally right. The more playing we see of scenarios, the closer we will be to the end result of a true representation of balance for that particular scenario.

 

[Jazz]

[QUOTE='Ol Fezziwig] I think some forget ASL is just a hobby, after all, not a measure of one's worth as a human being.[/QUOTE]

What? You can't be serious!

Can you back this up with a rules quotation? Or are we expected to just take you word for it?

"Scandalized"
Jazz

 

[RobZagnut]

As I posted in a previous topic, I don't use or trust ROAR.

I would use and trust a 2ROAR where players would report the playing of a scenario if it was at least the second time each player has played the scenario.

Too many players screw up a scenario the first time they play it. They need to play it once to see the how to play it or see the tricks and traps. Playtesters play scenario numerous times to balance it, but most players only play a scenario once which isn't a true indictator of a scenario's balance.

I've seen too many scenarios where the early word is that one side is heavily favored (Urban Guerillas), but further playings shows that is is balanced. ROAR does not make up for the early spike of un-informed and unbalanced reportings.

 

[Jazz]

As I posted in a previous topic, I don't use or trust ROAR.

I would use and trust a 2ROAR where players would report the playing of a scenario if it was at least the second time each player has played the scenario.

Too many players screw up a scenario the first time they play it. They need to play it once to see the how to play it or see the tricks and traps. Playtesters play scenario numerous times to balance it, but most players only play a scenario once which isn't a true indictator of a scenario's balance.

I've seen too many scenarios where the early word is that one side is heavily favored (Urban Guerillas), but further playings shows that is is balanced. ROAR does not make up for the early spike of un-informed and unbalanced reportings.

I will use it, but I don't "trust" it. Having a background in actually using statistics gives one an appreciation for using statistical data while not blindly believing it and accepting it as TRUTH.

It is only one data point that gets used to decide to play a scenario. Looking at the scenario card is infinitely more important. I will rarely if ever decide to play or not play a scenario based on ROAR alone. Indeed, if a scenario looks like it "should" be balanced and ROAR has it a dog, we'll play it just to see how that is so. Often it is just as Herr Wolkey says, there's a learning curve and the key to win/loss is too subtle to see on the first playing.

 

[zgrose]

Of course, how balanced is a scenario if you have to be an ASL expert or have played it 5 times to have a chance at winning? :devil:

Whether or not you like/trust the results, it is beneficial to the community at large to report them anyway (only takes a few seconds). ROAR's achilles heel is sample size and withholding results because you have an issue with the small sample size is a self-fulfilling prophecy.

 

['Ol Fezziwig]

:laugh: good ol' Jazz, always good for a side splitter. Of course, if you had had any dignity, you'd have driven the amphib Kubelwagen across that damned river, wouldn't you? :argh:

 

[Jazz]

[QUOTE='Ol Fezziwig]:laugh: good ol' Jazz, always good for a side splitter. Of course, if you had had any dignity, you'd have driven the amphib Kubelwagen across that damned river, wouldn't you? :argh:[/QUOTE]

But of course, I have no dignity...or shame.

Just what scenario are we talking about a kubelwagen and a river? The synapse that held that memory does not seem to be functioning....