Classic Heroscape Power Rankings

[mccombju]

Originally Posted by Jexik

Sometimes your "book" becomes more credible by writing a book, and not actually winning all that much.

See: Jexik.

Note: If picking good armies were all it took to win tournaments, I'd be really good. I told him what to play last year.

Haha. True.

People admire and respect those who can synthesize and communicate otherwise apparently random permutations.

[Kinseth]

mccombju

Gencon might have the most players, that doesn't mean it has a gathering of the best players in the world/Country. I don't quite see the Gencon Tournament = to Stanley Cup.

Its more like the SEC Championship in realm of the College Football Landscape.

I never claimed I'm the best, or even hinted at it. Nor do I think I am to begin with. The challenge to MM has nothing to do with this, though it appears Ollie has taken up the challenge and we will get to have Knights vs Glads at Slugfest II before the event starts.

mccombju I hope you re-read my words without any biased towards me, and you might see what I was really getting at.

[Einar's puppy]

Originally Posted by Revdyer

There is another factor in the rankings, as well, and that is play style. Depending on a player's style (aggressive, turtle-like, liking a lot of movement, etc.) a figure's ranking will shift, perhaps as much as a full letter grade. Different units work better or worse with differing styles of play; and even at the tournament level, there are observable differences in style.

Rev made this post a few pages back, but I agree with it 100%

If I had my way, Q9 would be a C. Really, I can't get him to work for me, and when he does wind up beating my army, it's normally because of exterior things (Like snow/a lucky Kelda role...that was a bad day for me) more than Q9 really performing. At the same time, I think that his A+ is deserved. He wins a lot, and he synergizes very well with the other A+ units.

At the same time, I would have microcorp at an A. I love them, and they work for me more often than not. At the same time, I understand the reasoning why they are B+. They are tricky to use well, and a bad map can really suck.

Personal playing styles totally change the game and how it is player. I have a friend who never attacks unless figures are within range. He sits in his castle (he always insists on playing castle maps) and waits. Normally, I would use one of my normal armies on him, like Knights, Microcorp, or 10th Reg. Against him, I have to adapt and use something like Dragons or minions to beat him. Against him, some units are better than others.

[damja]

Originally Posted by Einar's puppy

If I had my way, Q9 would be a C. Really, I can't get him to work for me, and when he does wind up beating my army, it's normally because of exterior things (Like snow/a lucky Kelda role...that was a bad day for me) more than Q9 really performing. At the same time, I think that his A+ is deserved. He wins a lot, and he synergizes very well with the other A+ units.

At the same time, I would have microcorp at an A. I love them, and they work for me more often than not. At the same time, I understand the reasoning why they are B+. They are tricky to use well, and a bad map can really suck.

Personal playing styles totally change the game and how it is player. I have a friend who never attacks unless figures are within range. He sits in his castle (he always insists on playing castle maps) and waits. Normally, I would use one of my normal armies on him, like Knights, Microcorp, or 10th Reg. Against him, I have to adapt and use something like Dragons or minions to beat him. Against him, some units are better than others.

This is part of the rock-paper-scissors aspect of the game too. Aldin mentioned power seep coming into the game. I am of the same opinion as him - the more the designers/playtesters do a great job of balancing armies, even if it is situational balance (snow, for example) the better it is for the game.

When I was playing much more frequently most of our games were pre-made armies, but once in a while we would draft. As soon as it was apparent that someone was going to make a killer combo (Q-9/Raelin, Krav/Raelin, Q-9/rats, etc) everyone would do whatever they could to not make that happen. (We didn't allow for more than one person to use a specific unit)

Now there are more option to not only counter-draft but in doing so still make use of some pretty cool synergies.

[kenjib]

Under the following assumptions, Spider Poison is the best Heroscape player in the world:

1. Defeating opponents in a tournament setting is the best measurement of Heroscape skill.

2. Gencon is the pre-eminent Heroscape tournament setting and carries more weight than other tournaments.

3. We can only measure what we know, and since there are always things we don't know (regarding anything really), if we reserve judgment based on what we don't know we will never be able to make any qualitative assessments, which is a pretty useless and paralyzing situation to find oneself in. As a result, the mysterious 10 year old heroscape prodigy in Katmandu (whom none of her 10 year old friends will play Heroscape with because they always lose) could, theoretically, be the best but this is not very relevant when assessing who the best is because I've never heard of her and she hasn't tested her skill according to the criteria of 1 and 2 above.

[spider_poison]

Thanks for all the comments on my game, guys. It kind of made me blush as I read it . I would never make a claim to being the best or anything like that, but I've always hoped that my results in tourneys do give this thread more credibility.

There's been quite a bit said recently as well, and I'd like to comment on much of that.

Originally Posted by damja

Not everything in the world follows a normal distribution, and not every normal distribution is the same. Yes, the probabilities of standardized scores (aka z-scores) all fit into a concise package.

There is no reason for us to say that the distribution of unit grades in HeroScape must be normal. In fact, normal distributions can only occur if we have quantitative data. In the case of this Power Rankings system we do not use any quantitative data. We use anecdotal information and empirical (observed) data.

If you want to apply a normal distribution then you will need to start collecting numeric data. One idea is to look at the proportion of the units are found in the armies of winning tournament games. However, keep in mind that there are confounding variables such as the skill of the players involved in each game and the fact that many people in tournaments use the Power Rankings as a way to help them decide what army to play in the first place.

There is a saying in statisitics

All models are wrong - some are just better than others.

My feeling is that this model is pretty good for what it is meant to be, and personaly already kind of look at the grades in a similar light to what Messenger said above.

Yes, a math whiz came in . I would have said something similar, but you are saying it much better than I could...especially with that first paragraph. I could be wrong on this, but it seems like most grading/ranking scales aren't based on a curve anyway. Would a curve provide for more accurate judging of each of the units? Almost certainly, but I really don't think the rankings are ineffective they way they are now. I think it's really just a matter of understanding the scale, and this scale is extremely similar to many that are already out there. For that matter, I'll be adding Messenger's descriptions to the first post. I feel like he very well describes each letter ranking, and that's also how the rankings are supposed to be viewed.

Originally Posted by Sarpedon

What is the purpose of the power rankings? That's the main question. Is it just a popularity contest? If so, it's not very useful. If, however, it is a spectrum (normal distribution or not) to illustrate the competitiveness or tournament-worthiness of units with respect to other units in the game, then it is a very useful tool, especially for novices. THIS is what I think Spider Poison intended (he may correct me if I'm wrong).

Yep, that's exactly what I intended.

Originally Posted by Aldin

People have been discussing whether or not we have power creep in Heroscape. I think the truth is that we have power seep. I define power seep in Heroscape as the effect observed over time where an increasingly higher percentage of units are top tier components of tournament armies. Not number of units - percentage of units.

Through synergies the designers are doing a spectacular job of strengthening units that were competitively weaker and and weakening the ones that were competitively stronger. All while trying not to create any new "A+" figs.

I've never heard that term used before, but I like it, and it does seem very accurate of the way the game is shaping up. Hardly any units come out now where most people will think "wow, this guy is just awful." On the flip side, very few units are coming out now that are going to dominate the tourney scene. I realize this latest wave is probably a better example than most, but most of the latest units are pretty good...not elite, but they can hang with elite units and beat many existing units. Jexik joked around that the whole wave should get a B+ or B stamp and be done with it. It may sound silly at first, but I do think there is some truth to his statement.

Originally Posted by Revdyer

There is another factor in the rankings, as well, and that is play style. Depending on a player's style (aggressive, turtle-like, liking a lot of movement, etc.) a figure's ranking will shift, perhaps as much as a full letter grade. Different units work better or worse with differing styles of play; and even at the tournament level, there are observable differences in style.

Agreed. For example, somebody who likes to rush the front lines probably won't do too well with the Krav. Conversely, you can't just sit back with your Gladiatrons and expect to win. Like you mentioned, playing style can have a big influence on how useful a unit will be.

Originally Posted by Rÿchean

I commend him for the effort it takes to establish and maintain the rankings, but it is still just his opinion. His rankings are certainly not beyond reproach. In fact, I wish some players formulated their own opinions more than just accepting his.

poster1: "That is an A list unit."
poster2: "Why?"
poster1: "Because spider says so"

That is a mentaility I would like to see avoided.

Me too. I hope that my rankings give a ballpark area of the usefulness of each unit, but the last thing I want is for people to accept them as the gospel. Even though I use the community to come up with many rankings, the rankings are still ultimately my opinions.

Originally Posted by Jexik

Note: If picking good armies were all it took to win tournaments, I'd be really good. I told him what to play last year.

And the tourney before that, and probably the one before that . Not to overload Jexik's PM inbox, but I think he's easily one the most create army builders. We've exchanged thoughts many times in the past, and he's able to come up with the best armies for each and every event and then explain why they're the best.



Having said all that, I still haven't decided whether or not to do the new unit rankings before or after GenCon this year. There's actually a good two months before the Con. I don't want to jump to conclusions, but that might be enough time to come up with good rankings. I'll actually be proxying some figures for the new stuff later tonight to see how they do. A lot of times when I ask for opinions on units (this time included), it's actually so I can see what people think and provide more accurate rankings. So yeah, I'd be interested to hear what others think of the new stuff and especially if anyone has some play experience with them yet.

Thank you all for taking the time to read my essay

[Cleon]

I too plan to proxy at least some of Wave 9 this weekend, or some time soon. I'll post what I think.

But I do already agree that the units all look higher than the D category, falling into a C or better grade. Lots of B+'s, probably.

[Matthias Maccabeus]

Spider Poison is the best player in heroScape, period.

Wait a minute, if he's the best player and I beat him the last game we played against each other in a tournament setting, what does that make me...

[Kinseth]

It must be true!

[Aldin]

Originally Posted by Matthias Maccabeus

Wait a minute, if he's the best player and I beat him the last game we played against each other in a tournament setting, what does that make me...

The exception that proves the rule?

~Aldin, speaking in joust

[Matthias Maccabeus]

Originally Posted by Aldin

The exception that proves the rule?

~Aldin, speaking in joust

Either that or lucky.

~Matthias, still the current TTO champion.

[rdhight]

Originally Posted by mccombju

Haha. True.

People admire and respect those who can synthesize and communicate otherwise apparently random permutations.

Last tournament I went to, I played glads x4, blasts x2, and Raelin. I didn't even have a winning record. Picking a good army is vital, but there's more to it than that-- a whole lot more.