Cactus Game Design Message Boards

nope they ain't. still good though.

nope they ain't still good though.

Have you ever played against a green priest offense?

Have Green Brigade Prophets Ever Won at Nationals!

No they have not but they have come CLOSE! They are really strong!

uh i forgot a period the are super strong.

Also Nats was in California so 90% of Redemption players couldn't go

So 10% showed up in CA.  I heard it was about 100 (plus or minus a few).  Let's just use 100 for calculation sake.  That means there are 1000 Redemption players.  MN had the highest turnout in 2005 at about 260+.  So...

74% of Redemption players couldn't go to the most attended Nats.


Yeah, YMT is right.  We need exact counts.

 

So 10% showed up in CA.  I heard it was about 100 (plus or minus a few).  Let's just use 100 for calculation sake. 

Or you could look at the listing on the Covenant Games site and see the official attendance number was 85. (The 2005 Nats count was 252 for comparison.)

I need an exact count so I can make a more accurate precentage. Otherwise I can just throw out whatever numbers I like:

YMT, although no one can provide exact counts for everything, I am surprised that a math teacher would be so dismissive of the power of statistical sampling.

In 2009 there were 220 +- 10 players (+- for counting error) with T1-2P RNRS points according to Cactus .
There were 58 players total in T1-2P and T1-A in Nationals 2009 according to Covenant games.
This works out to a ratio of 3.8 : 1 (i.e., for every 3.8 players who earned RNRS points in 2009, 1 player attended Nationals that year).

In 2005 there were 275 +- 10 players  (+- for counting error) with T1-2P RNRS points according to Cactus.
There were 168 players total in T1-2P and T1-A at Nationals 2009 according to Covenant games.
This works out to a ratio of 1.6 : 1 (i.e., for every 1.6 players who earned RNRS points in 2005, 1 player attended Nationals that year).

So there is good news and there is bad news. The good news is that these results seem to be highly supportive of some possible point. The bad news is that I am not sure what that point would be.   Que cera, cera.

I think those stats are amazing. Sure, CA didn't have the worst turnout of all time, but isn't that just because (according to those statistics) about two thirds of the players were local RLK's?

I'm not saying Redemption is only for srsbsns, but when looking at Nationals attendance, you have to think about how many actually had a chance at placing in anything, not just how many there were. If Nats 2010 had 500 attendees, but only about ten people with a real chance at winning anything, I'd call it a huge flop.

However, your data (as you stated) does not defend the negative generalization he attempted.

I'm not sure this is quite correct, or it could be entirely correct depending on your point of view.  

Unless you are going to argue that there were sizable changes in the ratio of RNRS point winners to the general universe of Redemption players, it seems clear that a significantly higher percentage of 2005 players attended Nats than attended Nats in 2009. It also seems clear that the difference was a factor that probably lies somewhere between two and three and nowhere close to a factor of ten.

I think those stats are amazing. Sure, CA didn't have the worst turnout of all time, but isn't that just because (according to those statistics) about two thirds of the players were local RLK's?

I don't know, but we could possibly find out. We have available both yearly RNRS point winners and the tournament tracking files. I suppose there could be some method to correlate the RNRS point winners for the past few years to their attendance at Nationals. You would probably want to eliminate the RNRS points awarded at Nationals to help eliminate self-selection bias.

As a starting point on the RLK factor, the ratio of T1-2P:T1-A was about 3:1 in 2005 and about 14:1 in 2009. This is thrown out merely as an interesting data point--I have no idea what it means if anything.

I'm not saying Redemption is only for srsbsns, but when looking at Nationals attendance, you have to think about how many actually had a chance at placing in anything, not just how many there were.

Another completely meaningless, but possibly diverting math project would be to find the RNRS-weighted geographic center of the Redemption playing universe. The "fairest" city of all. My guess--and I mean a complete wild-eyed guess--is that this point would end up somewhere near Chicago

Can I point out that both the RLK- and the "fairest"-city projects could make very nice science fair or statistical analysis topics?

Quote from: EmJayBee83 on January 27, 2010, 09:57:45 PM

In 2009 there were 220 ... players ... with T1-2P RNRS points
In 2005 there were 275 ... players ... with T1-2P RNRS points

This is somewhat disturbing.  4 years later, and instead of the game growing, there are 50 less people winning tournaments.  That means that either less people are playing, or the winners are winning more consistently.

Quote from: EmJayBee83 on January 27, 2010, 11:58:58 PM

Another ... math project would be to find the RNRS-weighted geographic center of the Redemption playing universe.

I think this sounds like a GREAT project.  I'd be interested in hearing the results.

I would say that Redemption has been on a slow decline for awhile...

to that last sentence.

I believe it is the latter of the choices. Though sometimes there can be upsets (My little brother tying me for first.../soproud). I personally have seen growth down here thanks to the valiant efforts of YMT.

but then there are whole playgroups who have seemingly dropped off the map.

Quote from: Ring Wraith on January 28, 2010, 04:00:25 PM

but then there are whole playgroups who have seemingly dropped off the map.

...and whole regions.   

...and whole nations. Japan?