Why? You're saying the play style of all armies for tournament players is equally liked? They models that fit an army are equally liked? And that all armies synergize equally well with all other armies?If that was true we should have a completely even spread across all armies, surely? Selection means a great deal. if nothing else just for sake of composition!Selection by itself means very little.
When you have enough data you can derive player skill and adjust for it, but I'm not sure the project will ever get to that stage.@Squirrelloid I will admit freely that I don't have the in-depth statistical knowledge to analyze this or offer true rebuttal, but I also feel that looking at this result and saying "This means nothing, it is purely random and a fluke and not indicative of anything" feels... wrong.
Player skill, for example, will always make it hard to see true. So will matchups! Yet both of those are a big part of even singles tournaments, should not that then also contaminate the data to the point it's "useless"?
I know it's dangerous to make to base big assumptions on team tournies- yet the overwhelming presence (or lack thereof) of certain armybooks in top/bottom placements seem to echo trends seen in singles.
If you have lots of match ups of players across different versions and with different armies you can start to decide which wins and losses don't dictate power level.
If you have a group of players that reliably finish bottom 50% with a variety of armies each, over a variety of versions. If this group pick up the same army and then start performing mid top 50%, then you can fairly reliably say the army is op. You have to consider the skill levels of they people they play and the RPS style of the match ups though.
The post was edited 1 time, last by MrPieChee ().