|
|
|
 I can't claim to be an expert in the stess analysis field - I just play one on TV, er CD, er - okay, so call me a poser! - petek [more] |
 |
|
|||||||
|
||||||||
|
|
Thread Tools | Rate Thread | Display Modes |
|
|
|
| I can't claim to be an expert in the stess analysis field - I just play one on TV, er CD, er - okay, so call me a poser! - petek [more] |
|
|
|||||||
|
||||||||
|
|
Thread Tools | Rate Thread | Display Modes |
|
#7
10-09-2016, 20:03
|
||||
|
||||
|
Re: [C^3] 2016 CA Regionals Analysis
I'm having trouble interpreting the second set of graphs (Breaching success, quals and Breaching success, playoffs). In casd quals, the breaching success of the drawbridge is ~20%. Does this mean that the opponent defenses were breached in 20% of the matches in which the drawbridge was selected? Does this mean that the drawbridge was selected in 20% of matches in which a breach occurred? Or are you conflating breaches with weakenings?
|
| Thread Tools | |
| Display Modes | Rate This Thread |
|
|
Threaded Mode