[OUTDATED] The Return of FGei (for v1.32x)

[ColorlessGreen]

I don't know what the hell I want.  I can't deal with anything right now.

I will cover for you for any needs of this study in the short term. You may resume actively managing the study at any point you would like - just let me know. When the time comes to fully reactivate the study in 1.4 (in whatever form that may be), we can discuss whether you would like to continue/resume actively managing the study or whether you would prefer to pass management off to someone else and participate in other ways.

[eaglgenes101]

Needs more testers!

[Tsmuji]

I'm slightly confused as to why the nova version of Voodoo Bravery as opposed to the SN version has a (nearly negligible but still slightly) higher winrate and over double the EM rate but only ~2/3 of the FGei. With a TTW of 8.86 compared to 8.36 surely this statistic seems a little off?

[Keeps]

It's the skip rate...
By skipping the FG, you don't increase the TTW and you only lose the electrum.
In general the formula sheet, it's one of the inherent problems with the original FGei and carries over with this one.
The idea that you should skip certain FGs to increase the electrum rate is valid, but is to be applied after the data is gathered, instead it's gathered as part of the data. 

So if one tester enters skips and another tester does not you get a totally different FGei score.

It's one of three problems with these tests
1.) Testing error (Including Skips)
2.) Different FGs have different card giving abilities, instead they went with the average, which is significantly wrong.
3.) The tests are done on random, so unless the tests were done in an even 10 games per FG, you will have error for a long time, normalization will even it out but it requires meeting that minimum before the numbers stabilize.

The thing is FGei still is good enough to give you a feel for where a deck stands so people still go with it.

[the dictator]

I'm currently testing my own version of voodoo bravery, gathering data with the Statmasta sheet, but this one tracks Time to win/lose/skip, instead of turns, which not only seems more accurate, but necessary if you want to calculate electrum gain per hour. How are you doing this in the other statgathering file?

Spoiler for Deck:

Hover over cards for details, click for permalink

Deck import code : [Select]

6u3 6u3 6u3 6u3 6u3 6ve 6ve 6ve 6ve 6ve 74d 74d 77l 77l 77l 77l 77l 77l 7ee 7ee 7ee 7ee 7ee 7tg 7tg 7tg 80b 80b 80b 80b 8pu

Basically, I traded 1 Shard of Bravery for 1 Voodoo Doll. This way you run less risk of having to discard cards because of your awesome drawing power but nothing-to-play. With an additional voodoo doll, the odds are much better to have at least that a voodoo doll (and a basilisk blood), and those together are save to toss out to empty your hand (against almost all gods at least), which also improves the functionality of the other shards (because you are now more likely to have empty spots in your hand, thus you are more likely to get both draws from a shard, instead of just one)

[Keolino]

I'm currently testing my own version of voodoo bravery, gathering data with the Statmasta sheet, but this one tracks Time to win/lose/skip, instead of turns, which not only seems more accurate, but necessary if you want to calculate electrum gain per hour.

wrong. The time to win differs from player to player MUCH more than from deck to deck. even if we don't do anything else, my brother needs about *1,2 the time that I do, with the same deck, to play each turn. Because he likes to think a little more and plays generally slower than me (Not only elements, but many games). If both of us would record time to win instead of turns, you wouldn't be able to put them into the same thread. (That aside, I need about ten-twenty more seconds per game if I am sleepy or not really motivated to grind fast.

--> So the more logical as well more accurate way is, to decide on a normal turns per hour speed (which the community did long in the past) And calculate the Electrum/Hour from that, asuming that all decks need for each turn the same amount of time.

[the dictator]

Hmm, that would require you to track turns to lose as well as turns to win, but aside from that is doesn't seem unreasonable.

JENKAR!!!
Go fix the statmasta sheet plox.

Sadly, that also means the data I have collected already is useless, because there is no way to track back the turns to win/lose (I'm afraid).

Though, thinking about it, assuming I have already had my learning curve for this deck (and I should, I have been using it long before I started the study), I should be able to put the win/loss/skip data from those 80 matches together with whatever I'm going to collect later on. That means the TTW and TTL as based on a subset of the data, but it also means there is more data, which is good

Note: Pella, you might want to put a warning about this in your opening post.

[Keeps]

Pella has left the community for a while ColorlessGreen said he would take over.

[the dictator]

Oh, whatever.

Just noted something else that could use an update: the card drop rate chance (unless that is already updated in the calculator, just not in the opening post)

[Keolino]

Hmm, that would require you to track turns to lose as well as turns to win, but aside from that is doesn't seem unreasonable.

turns to lose is also relative and can be a problem, because some people play games they will lose anyway, and some gamers stop in the middle. So there is also an average number for that. There are still some people who like to record TTL seperated from TTW, to add to the information which their test provides.

[the dictator]

Well of course. You don't even have to track skips separately if you just list them as a loss with 0 TTL (which is what they are, basically).

[Keeps]

The proper way is not to track skips at all...  but to play all the games through as best as you can.
Then, have the program or sheets calculate the FGs to skip to give the highest FGei.
But none of the tests have worked that way.