[OUTDATED] FG Efficiency Study - Applying statistics to all of the myths

[kirchj33]

I made one small change to the more slim version of the CCYB that was posted.  If you have already started farming with it, you will need to start from scratch with the updated version.

It was clear that the original (1.24) version was outdated and needed to be updated to something new.  tttt seems to be having success with this version I updated to.

[Genuinous]

I made one small change to the more slim version of the CCYB that was posted.  If you have already started farming with it, you will need to start from scratch with the updated version.

It was clear that the original (1.24) version was outdated and needed to be updated to something new.  tttt seems to be having success with this version I updated to.

I don't really like this update.... That single PA never comes....
Also a bit low on  healing I think. If it was for me I'd switch it for another SoG.
Idk how tttt is doing with it, but I'm barely above 50%.... Getting pwned by Ferox and Fire Queen, which I did beat with the original version of CCYB. Just noting.
I also had the worst draw of my life. All 7 pillars were amongst the last 13 cards. I managed to win though.

[kirchj33]

I made one small change to the more slim version of the CCYB that was posted.  If you have already started farming with it, you will need to start from scratch with the updated version.

It was clear that the original (1.24) version was outdated and needed to be updated to something new.  tttt seems to be having success with this version I updated to.

I don't really like this update.... That single PA never comes....
Also a bit low on  healing I think. If it was for me I'd switch it for another SoG.
Idk how tttt is doing with it, but I'm barely above 50%.... Getting pwned by Ferox and Fire Queen, which I did beat with the original version of CCYB. Just noting.
I also had the worst draw of my life. All 7 pillars were amongst the last 13 cards. I managed to win though.

50% is quite good actually.

Anyways... again, I feel the need to remind people that this is not yet the venue for discussing and debating deck choices and their variants.  Assuredly, there was sound reasoning behind the choices that were made, and we needed to limit the scope initially.  We are taking a scientific approach to the study, and are trying to avoid the old "I'm using this because it feels good" statements.

Sometime in the near future.... after beginning to collect data on these current decks.... I will open the last blank post discussing possible deck additions and additional variants.  At that point in time, any debate and discussion will be welcome.  For now, these types of posts are just a distraction to what we are trying to achieve.

[twixy10]

I just want to say how I love this idea!
One place where all the stats of all good FG farmers will be. And all of them in the same format (same testing method).
I really appreciate the effort all of you put in this

[Genuinous]

deck	CCYB Slim
players	Genuinous

version	1.27		win-rate	48%
$ track ?	enabled		win-rate (n)	n.a.
games	100		Score/h	458
win-loss-(EM)	48-52-(5)		Score/h (n)	n.a.
time (h:m:s)	05:40:27		FGei[c]* (http://elementscommunity.org/forum/index.php/topic,14626.0.html)	3665
min/game	03:24		FGei[cn]* (http://elementscommunity.org/forum/index.php/topic,14626.0.html)	n.a.

      Statmasta™4000                                                                *assumed card-spin/win: 35%      
      
I'll edit this later, when I get up to 200 games. Just a quick question, now that I see the actual lookalike of this. How can I replace the n.a.-s? Those blocks are just empty in my Excel... This was most likely a question for Jangoo.

[YawnChainHow]

I'll edit this later, when I get up to 200 games. Just a quick question, now that I see the actual lookalike of this. How can I replace the n.a.-s? Those blocks are just empty in my Excel... This was most likely a question for Jangoo.

Normalized-stats  (n)
The three stats on the bottom of the sheet are calculated by "normalizing" your FalseGod-
encounters, which means that uneven numbers of encounters are evened out to make a
good statistical guess as to what your decks win-rate, score/h and FGei(c) against ALL
the gods should actually be.
E.g., if you lost 20 times against Hermes but generally played only around 4 matches against
all the other gods, your Hermes encounters will be balanced in your favour:
Your norm-win-rate, score/h (n) and FGei(cn) will be higher than your actual win-rate, score/h and FGei(c).

The norm-stats will be unlocked once you have played at least 3 games against each
FalseGod. Note that this is still much too low from a statistical standpoint. If you want
more reliable norm-stats, you should try and play at least 10 matches against each god.
(Common opinion in this community.)

The chance of playing every FG 3+ times in a 100 game sample is not especially high with the game's RNG, unfortunately.

[Jangoo]

I'll edit this later, when I get up to 200 games. Just a quick question, now that I see the actual lookalike of this. How can I replace the n.a.-s? Those blocks are just empty in my Excel... This was most likely a question for Jangoo.

Congratulations Genuinous! You are the first member in this community to post stats with the Statmasta4000! 

Just a quick technical (bug)-question: Are those cells EMPTY or do they show "n.a." as well in your actual Excel table?

To answer you question:

Yes, like YawnChainHow extracted from the STATMASTA-Quick-Guide (must-read if you take part in this study!),
you would have to play 3 games against each god.
Note however, that it is no problem at all if you still haven't met each god three times once you reach those 100 games
(or 200, or 300, or ...), the reason being:
ALL of the stats submitted by the testers will be compiled into one single file which will then calculate the collective stats.
Having met each god at least three times should be a piece of cake as a group ...

Once you reach the final number of games you have set for yourself (200?), be sure to upload and link the
.xls file containing your data.

The chance of playing every FG 3+ times in a 100 game sample is not especially high with the game's RNG, unfortunately.

True, it's not. The mathematically possible minimum number of games to unlock the norm-stats is of course 87, so doing it with
100 games would still be extremely lucky, RNG or not. I guess you have a realistic chance when aiming for 200+ games.

[10 men]

deck	CCYB Slim
players	Genuinous

version	1.27		win-rate	48%
$ track ?	enabled		win-rate (n)	n.a.
games	100		Score/h	458
win-loss-(EM)	48-52-(5)		Score/h (n)	n.a.
time (h:m:s)	05:40:27		FGei[c]* (http://elementscommunity.org/forum/index.php/topic,14626.0.html)	3665
min/game	03:24		FGei[cn]* (http://elementscommunity.org/forum/index.php/topic,14626.0.html)	n.a.

      Statmasta™4000                                                                *assumed card-spin/win: 35%      
      
I'll edit this later, when I get up to 200 games. Just a quick question, now that I see the actual lookalike of this. How can I replace the n.a.-s? Those blocks are just empty in my Excel... This was most likely a question for Jangoo.

The number for score/hour seems wrong... I think the program forgot that you lose 30 for every loss.

[Genuinous]

No it is correct... The program calculated the losses as negative numbers. Once I upload it all *goes and tries to figure out how* it will be clearer.
And if you think about it, ~50% win rate + 13% EM rate will give you a fairly good score. If you lose one game, then win one your score went up, (loss is -30, win is +(31-59)) So it won't be low at all.

[Genuinous]

I uploaded to RapidShare after playing a couple more games (https://rapidshare.com/files/461374351/Statmasta4000.xls)
I hope this is good now *keeps farming*

[10 men]

Well, a rough estimate for the earned score would be
43*50 (for the normal wins) + 5*120 (for EMs) (= 2750)
- 52*30 (=1560)
=1190
divided by 5.66 h makes 210 points per hour.

[Genuinous]

I uploaded it to RapidShare, take a look. For me it looks good, but I might be wrong... Jangoo?