vexillia
Centurion
Inscrit le: 21 Nov 2017
Messages: 463
Localisation: Nantwich, UK
|
|
madaxeman
Magister Militum
Inscrit le: 01 Nov 2014
Messages: 1707
Localisation: Londres Centraal.
|
 Posté le: Mar Déc 16, 2025 9:47 pm Sujet du message: |
 |
FYI there are 434 players who have taken part in one or more ADLG events in the UK since competitions began over here.
76 of those are overseas-based, leaving 358 UK-based players who've ever rolled an ADLG dice in a competitive context.
174 of those have played in at least one event the last 12 months.. so 184 haven't
Of those 184:
- at least 6 of them are people who I know have passed away.
- 79 of them had only played one competition ever - so chances are they are people who tried it once but didn't really take to it.
- A further 33 had only played twice, so likely they are slightly more persistent than the one-timers, but still didn't really feel it was for them
That only leaves 66 UK-based players who fall in the Venn Diagram of "have played in at least 3 events before now" and "didn't play in one this year"
The UK total pool generally includes around 15-20 or so people every year who "come back" after missing all of the previous year, so if that holds true then about 1/4-1/3 of those "maybe's" might come back of their own accord next year anyway.
So, there's not really any data to suggest that there is a huge pool of lapsed players out there who can easily be tempted back into the ADLG waters I'm afraid - much the same as for any other set TBH.
_________________
www.madaxeman.com |
|
vexillia
Centurion
Inscrit le: 21 Nov 2017
Messages: 463
Localisation: Nantwich, UK
|
| Posté le: Mer Déc 17, 2025 9:36 am Sujet du message: |
|
Thanks for analysing your data. I was hoping you'd do that. 
I had another look at the ADLG data's event distribution and the two sets are clearly very different. At the lower end of participation the ADLG data set gives:
| Code: | Events Count
0 1
1 1
2-3 18
4-5 50
6-10 42 |
Clearly, 78 of the 79 "one event" players in your data didn't make it into the ADLG database for some reason or another.
Looks like a case of "lies, damn lies & statistics".
_________________
Martin Stephenson
Subscribe via email or rss.
Dernière édition par vexillia le Mer Déc 17, 2025 9:48 am; édité 1 fois |
|
vexillia
Centurion
Inscrit le: 21 Nov 2017
Messages: 463
Localisation: Nantwich, UK
|
| Posté le: Mer Déc 17, 2025 9:44 am Sujet du message: |
|
Ah! Spotted the difference: the numbers above are games not events. Doh! That fits better but not perfectly. Your data allows the inactive players to be split further into one event players and others. Thanks.
_________________
Martin Stephenson
Subscribe via email or rss.
Dernière édition par vexillia le Mer Déc 17, 2025 9:51 am; édité 1 fois |
|
madaxeman
Magister Militum
Inscrit le: 01 Nov 2014
Messages: 1707
Localisation: Londres Centraal.
|
| Posté le: Mer Déc 17, 2025 9:51 am Sujet du message: |
|
| vexillia a écrit: | Thanks for analysing your data. I was hoping you'd do that.
I had another look at the ADLG data's event distribution and the two sets are clearly very different. At the lower end of participation the ADLG data set gives:
| Code: | Events Count
0 1
1 1
2-3 18
4-5 50
6-10 42 |
Clearly, 78 of the 79 "one event" players in your data didn't make it into the ADLG database for some reason or another.
Looks like a case of "lies, damn lies & statistics". |
The ELO rankings only include events where results were recorded on the official spreadsheet and were then emailed to Herve in the correct format to be uploaded to the database.  Some events - Britcons 2-list format event for example - are incompatible with uploading, and many other smaller events the organiser just didn’t bother.Â
The BHGS rankings include every UK event that has taken place where results have been published online, no matter how it was run, managed or scored.Â
_________________
www.madaxeman.com |
|
vexillia
Centurion
Inscrit le: 21 Nov 2017
Messages: 463
Localisation: Nantwich, UK
|
| Posté le: Mer Déc 17, 2025 10:35 am Sujet du message: |
|
TBH I don't think the data sets are that far apart:
338 vs 358 UK players
148 vs 176 not played in the last twelve months
70 vs 79 one event players
Given the differences in recording you've outlined I don't think that's too bad a fit. No order of magnitude differences.
The main difference is in the size of the opportunity and this is mostly down to whether you exclude the one event players or not. This boils down to personal choice.
_________________
Martin Stephenson
Subscribe via email or rss.
Dernière édition par vexillia le Mer Déc 17, 2025 10:59 am; édité 1 fois |
|
Mark G Fry
Légat
Inscrit le: 15 Juin 2017
Messages: 618
Localisation: Bristol, UK
|
| Posté le: Mer Déc 17, 2025 10:38 am Sujet du message: |
|
Personally, I think the (relatively) long period of stability we have all enjoyed as players in relation to ADLG v.4 has been hugely beneficial (particularly in the UK) to the stability of the UK ADLG player numbers.
We have all watched in repeated horror (& suffered from) the self-destructive tendencies of player communities (particularly from competitive players) to strongarm various rules authors into making endless changes or creating massive errata sections, purely to satisfy their need to alleviate some small but over-played weakness in the rules.
Personally, I don't think we need a v.5, as the level of true and meaningful errata is still at a minimal level, although I am sure it will probably come along at some point (eventually). However, I'd be voicing that we need to be very cautious about what we wish for here - "evolution not revolution" would be my watch word.
Having played another set of ancient rules (for over 20 years previously) where the author was silent and had disengaged completely from his player base, a very long time previously, I'd say that the support we have for ADLG is excellent. The fact that it is run primarily by volunteer players means that it is never going to be able to match the instantaneous and decisive responses that might be achieved from a more 'professional' support team (such as provided by the likes of GW or Battlefront, for example). It also means that there will be some debate amongst the Technical support team and that debate will occasionally produce contradictory results on the forum. But again, I'd view that as healthy. What is not healthy however is the involvement of non-player rules lawyers, who interject into these debates, all too often causing what appears to be almost deliberate chaos. But then it's an open community and we will have to live with that as a consequence.
NB: I can only think of one longstanding set of successful wargames rules (Hordes of the Things) that has managed to survive the fiery maelstrom of competitive wargaming, and still be played and still be fun to play, with only a single (maybe 2) relatively minor errata changes in its very long history. Which is a major achievement by the author. But this one exception is eclipsed by the almost countless numbers of others that have failed and died a slow and painful death, often due to ill considered or poorly managed tinkering by small groups of highly competitive competition players that ultimately destroyed the fun of the game. I expect we all have many sets of expensive rules books and army lists gathering dust upon our shelves like decaying tomb stones, to prove the case.
Also being a commercial rules writer myself. I know just how demanding and dangerous it can be to continually have a rules author dragged into rules disputes or clarifications on line. I am often just too busy or distracted to give many of the minor queries and 'what if' scenarios that get thrown up at me, the time and consideration they deserves. Meaning that I am probably almost the worst person to ask to clarify or adjudicate on my own sets of rules, as I have very often, metaphorically' 'moved on' in my head and actually rarely play my own rules, as I am very focused on my next set(s). The fact that Herve appears (when needed) to clarify something really important, but at the request of the support team is IMHO a great blessing and we should use these opportunities very sparingly.
Yes, some of the army lists could do with updating and clarifying - that's almost a given - but it's easily dealt with, in the errata.
Yes, the current errata sheet could do with an update - but there's nothing to stop somebody producing their own version of this and submitting it for validation, if they were really concerned about it.
IMHO ADLG is fun to play and whilst it remains so it will thrive and grow. I know of a number of players, local to me, who play ADLG but do not want to play in competitions. It's just not their thing. They are probably silent on the forum (if they are members at all) and I expect many of them will be happily (even blissfully) unaware of the latest errata, or the latest on-line debate about how this particular situation or the other needs to be resolved and then the mechanism for doing so.
ADLG produces a quick, fun, visually inspiring game, that can be learnt relatively easily (& quickly) and played of an afternoon or evening at a local wargames club. The armies are also small enough to encourage new players to take up the rules (& the standardized DB bases help that) and for established players to experiment with building new armies - some more successful than other (my new 28mm Sumerian Successor being a case in question!).
I think that attempting to draw any real conclusions about the 'health' of the ADLG player base (in the UK or elsewhere) purely from competition statistics is probably not particularly scientific (or possibly that meanigful). Although, I find the numbers of players in comparison with other popular rules sets is fascinating. What would probably be of more value, in trying to establish whether the player community is growing or not, might be to understand the sales of rules books (by country) and the frequency of sales - as that might give us an idea of just how active and vibrant the local 'ADLG scene' actually is. If that is what we are really interested in?
Cheers (& a very early Happy Christmas to you all)
Mark
_________________
'He could have lived a risk-free, moneyed life, but he preferred to whittle away his fortune on warfare.' Xenophon, The Anabasis |
|
Zoltan
Légat
Inscrit le: 18 Jan 2015
Messages: 536
Localisation: Wellington, New Zealand
|
| Posté le: Jeu Déc 18, 2025 6:03 pm Sujet du message: |
|
| A well-considered summary to end the year Mark. |
|
madaxeman
Magister Militum
Inscrit le: 01 Nov 2014
Messages: 1707
Localisation: Londres Centraal.
|
|
FAQ
Rechercher
Liste des Membres
Groupes d'utilisateurs
S'enregistrer
Profil
Se connecter pour vérifier ses messages privés
Connexion
