[OUTDATED] The Return of FGei (for v1.32x)

[Pella]

Damn.

I seriously thought that the most recent script changes would fix everything.  However, since I changed things so that the "add a menu" script was the only way to get the menu, I figured I'd see if I could make it run automatically in a different way.  I've already been working on this, and I'm close to being ready to test it.

Then I log in here, and I see that the "fix" didn't actually fix anything, so it's a good thing I was working this solution, anyway.

[Pella]

Double post.  Sue me.

I finished the new script.  I tested it.  It worked perfectly  Upon opening the spreadsheet, nothing happened.  Upon editing the spreadsheet, I got the "IN USE" indicator and the "TESTING" menu.  Yay, me.

Then I opened a different browser, where I am not logged in to Google, so I could test from andre's viewpoint.  I got the "IN USE" indicator and nothing more.  I have no idea why.  There's nothing in the documentation that would explain why custom menus do not activate for non-logged-in users, or whether there's a solution.  Perhaps that's because the peeps at Google are arrogant enough to assume that anyone using a Google Doc MUST want to sign in first.  Why else would they be there?  That's a REAL shame, too, because it means that Google has gone the way of Microsoft; they now assume that anyone who doesn't subscribe to anything Google obviously doesn't own a computer.

Until I can implement a different solution, here's how to make the TESTING menu appear if it doesn't appear automatically for you.
*writes temporary workaround*
*tests temporary workaround*
*workaround doesn't work, either*
*throws computer out of a 50th-storey window*
*buys new computer*

Okay, if you don't log in to Google, you're not going to see a TESTING menu.  Period, stop, end of discussion.  Ain't gonna happen.  That means two things:
1) I need to create a completely different way for people to run the scripts that make this spreadsheet work.  I already know what I'm going to do, but doing will be a "female canine".
2) If you don't have access to the TESTING menu, please test, anyway.  Put your collected data in the yellow fields, anyway.  Then find someone in Chat who has access to the TESTING menu and ask them to run the two scripts on your sheet.  If you can't find anyone in chat, then just let it go.  No one will touch your data with the "IN USE" indicator present, so just leave it there and add more to it during your next data entry session.
2a) Yes, I could ask people to post here, but then what if it takes a while for someone to see it, and the script gets run while you're in the middle of entering something?  Answer:  I'm not sure, but it could corrupt the data, so let's not take the chance.  Either find someone in Chat, or leave it there until I figure out how I'm going to do this.

[joaoffb]

Please test these ones of you can:

The Melancholy Death of Chrysaora (for Malignant Cell) [FG][OTK][water][death]

http://elementscommunity.org/forum/index.php?topic=48843.0

and Don't Cut Yourself [OTK] [FG] [SoI] [1.32]

http://elementscommunity.org/forum/index.php/topic,45888.0.html

After you finish this topic, perhaps you can update the community recommended decks.

Thanks

[Pella]

Please test these ones of you can:

The Melancholy Death of Chrysaora (for Malignant Cell) [FG][OTK][water][death]

http://elementscommunity.org/forum/index.php?topic=48843.0

and Don't Cut Yourself [OTK] [FG] [SoI] [1.32]

http://elementscommunity.org/forum/index.php/topic,45888.0.html

After you finish this topic, perhaps you can update the community recommended decks.

Thanks

Testing for Don't Cut Yourself is happening already.  I haven't added it to the list yet because I've been busy grinding for ups for PvP events.  I'll probably do updates sometime this weekend, after my match is complete.

There is a procedure for adding decks to the Community-Recommended Decks section, which you can read here.

Community etiquette suggests that an individual who requests testing of a particular deck also is willing to test that deck him/herself. 

Which deck will you be testing, joaoffb?

[ColorlessGreen]

Community etiquette suggests that an individual who requests testing of a particular deck also is willing to test that deck him/herself. 

Which deck will you be testing, joaoffb?

For whatever it's worth, I basically completely disagree with this stance. It's a fine defense if someone is demanding that other people do their testing for them or something silly like that, but in basically all cases I would prefer more input to less input. I also haven't seen that the spirit of most other testing threads follows this stance. In fact, IIRC, most of the early studies had a list of approved "testers" and random community members weren't allowed to participate (without applying to be a tester) and could only suggest decks.

Someone suggesting a deck for testing has no right to require/force/expect anyone else to test the deck they're suggesting, but someone without the time and/or upped cards to do testing on their own may very well have good ideas for decks that need to be tested that could inspire those who do have the time and wealth to test.

[Pella]

Green, I agree with the principle you stated, especially where an individual has an idea yet lacks the time and/or ups.  In this particular case, the individual in question has not stated that s/he lacks either of these things.  Absent such a statement, I assume that the suggester has the resources to test.

The idea behind etiquette is not to compel but to "suggest", as I wrote initially.  Lack of testing by joaffb will not result in lack of testing by the Community.  I intended my self-quote and question to serve as polite reminders.  They were not intended to discourage people without resources from suggesting decks.

[joaoffb]

Can i test a mod I've made of Chapuz's limitless speed?

[Pella]

Can i test a mod I've made of Chapuz's limitless speed?

Of course!  Please be sure to follow all of the instructions in the OP.  Thanks for contributing to the project!

[Pella]

The list of requested decks and their stats has been updated.  It's in the second post of this thread, visible here.

This is an example of the summarized statistics I'm posting for each deck:

Poison Dials SoSac (32 cards version) by Sevs, submitted by rob77dp
FGei: 8,072 (unconfirmed)  W: 117  L: 112  Win rate: 51.09%  Win rate (normalized): 49.89%  TTW: 15.50  EM: 79  EM rate: 67.52% 

I borrowed this format from the Arena decks thread.  Please give your input concerning the data you'd like to see in this summary.  If something's not there, and you think it should be, please tell us.  On the other hand, if you see something that you think is irrelevant for FGei purposes, please tell us that, too.

TL;DR The deck list is updated.  Please give input about the information you'd like to see in each deck's summary.

[prune]

I just did 100 rounds of test on Firecell, and put the results up in the google doc sheet.  Didn't see it in there already so I made a new tab.

Overall results were 21 wins out of 100 matches, so 21%.

Edit : I notice after looking again at the thread, that Lionheart is winnable by decking him if you shield up and do a minimum of card draws.  I wasn't playing that way in my losses against Lionheart, so the stats for him should probably be ignored, sorry.

[Pella]

I notice after looking again at the thread, that Lionheart is winnable by decking him if you shield up and do a minimum of card draws.  I wasn't playing that way in my losses against Lionheart, so the stats for him should probably be ignored, sorry.

Actually, those losses should be counted, and they will.

Losses against FGs are part of the learning process.  While losing to them, we learn how to beat them.  Those losses are important, and they should be reflected in the overall stats.  Thank you for your contribution.

If you have the time and willingness, we certainly would appreciate any help you can provide with further testing.  If you want to stick with Firecell, that will help increase accuracy for that deck.  If you would prefer to test with a different deck, feel free.  Even if 100 duels is the limit of your current capabilities, we appreciate the help.

To everyone contributing testing statistics:
The above comments to prune apply equally to all of you.  Thank you! 

[UnderneathTheLens]

I notice after looking again at the thread, that Lionheart is winnable by decking him if you shield up and do a minimum of card draws.  I wasn't playing that way in my losses against Lionheart, so the stats for him should probably be ignored, sorry.

Actually, those losses should be counted, and they will.

Losses against FGs are part of the learning process.  While losing to them, we learn how to beat them.  Those losses are important, and they should be reflected in the overall stats.  Thank you for your contribution.

I strongly disagree with that stance, Pella. FGei is a tool for comparing FG decks with each other. How can we compare them if we don't try to play them at their best potential? Furthermore, the "losses due to learning process" is a slippery slope. At how big of a mistake will you consider the stats unusable? There's no way to keep this consistent if you just allow certain errors to be played. Thus, for this to work, every deck has to be played as well as possible, and if there's a mistake that significantly affects the winrate of a certain god, the data on that god should be thrown out.