PDA

View Full Version : Games Day Los Angeles Data



Duke Georgal
11-09-2008, 02:40
This is the data from Games Day in Los Angeles, USA.

I doesn't look like Orcs are the weakest, but boy are daemons powerful!

High Elves finished first, but only had 2 in the top third.

Analyze and comment as you will...

Break Down of Armies by Number and Percentage

1. Daemons of Chaos - [15] (16%)
2. Vampire Counts - [15] (16%)
3. High Elves - [13] (14%)
4. Dark Elves - [10] (11%)
5. Empire - [7] (8%)
6. Brettonnians - [6] (6.5%)
7. Wood Elves - [4] (4.5%)
8. Tomb Kings - [4] (4.5%)
9. Orc & Goblins - [4] (4.5%)
10. Ogre Kingdoms [3] (3%)
11. Lizardmen - [3] (3%)
12. Beasts of Chaos - [2] (2%)
13. Dwarves - [2] (2%)
14. Skaven - [2] (2%)
15. Warriors of Chaos - - [2] (2%)
16. Chaos Dwarfs - [0] (0%)
17. Dogs of War - [0] (0%)


Best Finish by Army and Number of Top 30 Finishes

1. Daemons of Chaos - 3rd (11)
2. Vampire Counts - 6th (7)
3. Dark Elves - 2nd (4)
4. High Elves - 1st (2)
5. Brettonnians - 10th (2)
6. Empire - 7th (1)
7. Wood Elves - 9th (1)
8. Tomb Kings - 18th (1)
9. Lizardmen - 25th (1)
10. Orc & Goblins - 32nd (0)
11. Skaven - 33rd (0)
12. Ogre Kingdoms - 60th (0)
13. Beasts of Chaos - 43rd (0)
14. Dwarves - 45th (0)
15. Warriors of Chaos - 66th (0)
16. Chaos Dwarfs - DNP (0)
17. Dogs of War - DNP (0)


Top 30 Overview

Avg Battle Score

1. Daemons of Chaos - 73.64
2. Vampire Counts - 68
3. Dark Elves - 72.75
4. High Elves - 80.5
5. Brettonnians - 70.5
6. Empire - 54
7. Wood Elves - 66
8. Tomb Kings - 57
9. Lizardmen - 57

Drake
11-09-2008, 05:30
I think you mean Vegas.

AzureDruchii
11-09-2008, 05:33
I think he means the tournament at games Day LA. Like he said.

As to the info, pretty much what I expected!

Elves back on top! 1-2 punch!

-Rex

King Vyper
11-09-2008, 05:54
No that is the LV Gt results, I should know I am the one who compiled the data.

Drake
11-09-2008, 05:56
Except those are the stats that came out of the Vegas GT. I was at the LA Games Day and their were not 92 people playing in the tourney.

Duke Georgal
11-09-2008, 11:24
Oh poop!

That is the data for Las Vegas. I shouldn't post when I am tired and should be in bed already.

LOL!

winkypinky
11-09-2008, 17:15
When seeing this data i really miss a site like deckcheck for magic.
Which lists tournament top 8's (could be an other number) but it includes the army lists. Something I think is really lacking in warhammer/40k tournament data.

Also deck check has some nice features. Such as listing most commonly used cards (units/items) in different archetypes. (armies)

If warseer was the first website with such a feature it would be the number 1 gw website.

Malorian
11-09-2008, 17:31
If warseer was the first website with such a feature it would be the number 1 gw website.

It is anyway...

DeathlessDraich
12-09-2008, 08:21
Thanks for the data.

1) The data *may* give only an *indication* of relative army strengths because it does not take into account the relative player strengths.

Suppose the winner and many high calibre players had chosen to play with Lizards, I'm sure Lizardmen would then be in the top 3.

2) Considering the small sample size of some armies, it would be fair to say that an acceptable comparison can be made with these armies only at the tournament:
Daemons, VC, DE and HE - large enough numbers participating.

3) Since Daemons, VC, DE and HE had a broadly similar performance, it could be concluded that these armies are roughly equal in strength.

Znail
12-09-2008, 09:06
Actualy, HE did rather poorly as only 2 out of 13 placed in the top third. What I dont get is why only include the top 30 in the battle score average? That hardly shows how well the armies did as it only shows where in the top 30 those ended up. An army wouldt be worse just because one player placed 30 compared to 31, but it would drag down the average of the top 30. If you for some reason want to remove some results then the removing the best and the worst result is a better idea for improving accuracy of the data.

King Vyper
12-09-2008, 11:48
Actualy, HE did rather poorly as only 2 out of 13 placed in the top third. What I dont get is why only include the top 30 in the battle score average? That hardly shows how well the armies did as it only shows where in the top 30 those ended up. An army wouldt be worse just because one player placed 30 compared to 31, but it would drag down the average of the top 30. If you for some reason want to remove some results then the removing the best and the worst result is a better idea for improving accuracy of the data.

Actually I planned too but I just got tired of crunching numbers.

Storak
12-09-2008, 15:23
Actualy, HE did rather poorly as only 2 out of 13 placed in the top third. What I dont get is why only include the top 30 in the battle score average? That hardly shows how well the armies did as it only shows where in the top 30 those ended up. An army wouldt be worse just because one player placed 30 compared to 31, but it would drag down the average of the top 30. If you for some reason want to remove some results then the removing the best and the worst result is a better idea for improving accuracy of the data.

trying to "AVERAGE" the data, again?

the full set is available here (http://gwuscommunity.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2008/09/vegasgtwarhammer.pdf).

just copy paste it into excel and start doing some calculations..

looking at the top 30 makes a lot of sense. it shows, what armies compete over top places. the limit is an artificial number, so you need to check, whether changing it a little, will change the results massively. (hint: it wont..)

O&G got 47 battle points on average, with the top score being 92 and the lowest 35. go figure..

ps: could someone please fix the title? this is about VEGAS!

Znail
12-09-2008, 16:47
trying to "AVERAGE" the data, again?

the full set is available here (http://gwuscommunity.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2008/09/vegasgtwarhammer.pdf).

just copy paste it into excel and start doing some calculations..

looking at the top 30 makes a lot of sense. it shows, what armies compete over top places. the limit is an artificial number, so you need to check, whether changing it a little, will change the results massively. (hint: it wont..)

O&G got 47 battle points on average, with the top score being 92 and the lowest 35. go figure..

ps: could someone please fix the title? this is about VEGAS!
Oh, realy? I will calculate the averages later then to see if you are correct. But I somehow doubt that HE will be at the top when you add in the 11 who didnt place in the top 30.

I also find it interesting that you who have priviously defended the ABM score as being of high significance now also want to defend the significance of using the average of the top 30s battle score. This is amusing as HE get the highest average there, but only an ABM of 46! How can you champion two systems who give totaly diffrent results?

Storak
12-09-2008, 17:59
Oh, realy? I will calculate the averages later then to see if you are correct. But I somehow doubt that HE will be at the top when you add in the 11 who didnt place in the top 30.

I also find it interesting that you who have priviously defended the ABM score as being of high significance now also want to defend the significance of using the average of the top 30s battle score. This is amusing as HE get the highest average there, but only an ABM of 46! How can you champion two systems who give totaly diffrent results?

i am not sure, what you are trying to tell me.

i think it is pretty obvious, that this analysis was done manually. it even looks as if he looked at the battlescores of the 30 (overally) best armies, not those with the top 30 battlescores (just guessing, i did not analyse the data..)

but still this imperfect data (combination of top 30 numbers and top 30 battle averages) gives us a pretty perfect picture of the current balance among fantasy armies: last 4 army books dominate the game, with daemons being the strongest, but all of them having the potential to get to the very top.
the numbers also give a very good indication of the armies, that are considered to be the weakest.

just use all of the data, the person who did this work made available (and remember, that it still is only a single tournament..) and don t critisise him because of a small part of it...

King Vyper
13-09-2008, 07:24
i am not sure, what you are trying to tell me.

i think it is pretty obvious, that this analysis was done manually. it even looks as if he looked at the battlescores of the 30 (overally) best armies, not those with the top 30 battlescores (just guessing, i did not analyse the data..)



I took the all the armies that placed in the top 30 and then I calculated there Average battle score from all the armies that where in the tournement.

So the High Elf Score does take into account the 11 others that did not place in the top 30.

Duke Georgal
13-09-2008, 11:11
No that is the LV Gt results, I should know I am the one who compiled the data.

Thank you.

I would have given you credit if a name was attached to the data when I received it.

Nice job.