I would like to see some stats on how likely a unit is to die or be worth half and how that correlates to win rates.
A question in this area would be like:
"When my vampire general dies how likely am I to score more than 5 points?" Cause I suspect that losing the general ends in total disaster and would like evidence to get the crumble rule adjusted.
Secondly I'm interested in games more generally.
I would like to investigate the data to answer question more in the vein of :
Are games mostly fun (even/close/interesting?) or are they more unfun.
A way to clarify this could be un fun games are when either its a total stand off and almost nothing happens, or its a complete landslide crushing defeat/victory.
To measure this we could look at the amount killed. If the score of the game is 15+ and the losses are minimal, or the opponent lost close to everything that probably wasn't a fun game.
Like wise if the game ends with no one on the objective and <1000 points killed then nothing happened.
Because most of our investigations so far have been aggregated over all games, but I would like to investigate these unfun games and see if there is a common theme or element leading to this. (Is avoidance or gunlines or monsters or infantry , etc. mostly contributing to un fun games) I would also really like to see this paired with the maps, and objectives. Are there specific maps/objectives/combination of the two that lead to un fun games.
Another way of looking at this would also be units that are never marked as dying outside being 20-0'd. What death stars exist that never die, which means that they are just to tough and contribute to unfun games by largely not participating.
Third use case could be to do with artillery, to see how much is killed with lists with artillery versus similar lists without?
I would like to see some stats on how likely a unit is to die or be worth half and how that correlates to win rates.
A question in this area would be like:
"When my vampire general dies how likely am I to score more than 5 points?" Cause I suspect that losing the general ends in total disaster and would like evidence to get the crumble rule adjusted.
Secondly I'm interested in games more generally.
I would like to investigate the data to answer question more in the vein of :
Are games mostly fun (even/close/interesting?) or are they more unfun.
A way to clarify this could be un fun games are when either its a total stand off and almost nothing happens, or its a complete landslide crushing defeat/victory.
To measure this we could look at the amount killed. If the score of the game is 15+ and the losses are minimal, or the opponent lost close to everything that probably wasn't a fun game. Like wise if the game ends with no one on the objective and <1000 points killed then nothing happened.
Because most of our investigations so far have been aggregated over all games, but I would like to investigate these
unfungames and see if there is a common theme or element leading to this. (Is avoidance or gunlines or monsters or infantry , etc. mostly contributing to un fun games) I would also really like to see this paired with the maps, and objectives. Are there specific maps/objectives/combination of the two that lead to un fun games.Another way of looking at this would also be units that are never marked as dying outside being 20-0'd. What death stars exist that never die, which means that they are just to tough and contribute to unfun games by largely not participating.
Third use case could be to do with artillery, to see how much is killed with lists with artillery versus similar lists without?