"I think an 8-1 record on ROAR is significant and I will pay attention to it. It does not mean that it will be my sole governing factor in deciding whether or not to play it--but it will be a factor, definitely."
Perhaps at a tournament this is more of an issue, but informally, I don't think it should be much of a factor at all. Certainly there are those who will feel (at a tourney) that "they can change history", or in this case, the trend. I know I have, posting one of the first US wins in PotL and Italian wins in Centauro on a Flank (from the Dispatches from the Bunker). But then again, I'm known as an arrogant SOB :nuts:
[/QUOTE} Moreover, I think ROAR tends to reflect reality more often than not, despite issues such as whether or not first-time players or experienced players, etc., are involved. I think ROAR accurately reflected "Priests on the Line" and "Ultimate Treachery," for example. Until people learned how to play the U.S. and the Japanese in those scenarios, they *were* unbalanced, and ROAR reflected that. However, the scenarios had a deeper potential than the initial playings reflected, and this potential began to be revealed with more playings--and ROAR reflected that as well. ROAR is certainly not static.[/QUOTE]
This is kind of a 'have your cake and eat it too' statement, neatly contradicting:
{/QUOTE}I definitely do not subscribe to the "less than 50 playings is useless" notion. {/QUOTE}
Of course, ROAR can -and does- reflect the status of playings, I just feel the early returns do not reflect often enough the true nature of a scenario. A small sample base just cannot ameliorate disparate player skill/levels enough to give other than a quick reading of the pulse and not a full examination. While I could not proscribe what number of playings would make a valid sample base, it would seem-in the case of PotL and UT, that the early returns were skewed based on a limited number of reports. I remember, quite clearly, vehement lambastings of both of these scenarios on the local board from guys who had only given cursory examination to the scenario, yet felt compelled to argue most vociferously against including it in the local tourney. (which, in fact, they suceeded in doing). I was labeled argumentative and dismissed out of hand for saying, of UT in particular, that a differing take was needed by the IJA than the one customarily taken by players of the Japanese. Early and/or limited ROAR reports cannot show whether a scenario has a learning curve involved with it, though a lopsided record -may- indicate that to be the case.
My habit is to check ROAR records after a scenario is played, rarely ever beforehand. For me, whether or not a scenario looks like it's a kicker is the determinating factor for me. Obviously for others that isn't the case. I just don't think 'ROAR-bartering' is a great way to choose a scenario. :bored:
That being said, it can be useful at higher levels of a tourney, but even then, it should be merely a tool rather than the reason.