Arena's Metagame Monitoring Project (AMMP)

[Keolino]

note that I changed the post a lot while you were typing.

the reason for 'version' is to be able to easily show the effect of certain changes;
while that isn't directly helpfull for this thread, other threads (like CIA) may benefit from it.

^^game version will be useful, once 1.4 comes and new players are looking at the tables. Nothing wrong with adding it to avoid confusion.

[CuCN]

Version can be gotten from the date, can't it?

[Leodip]

Version can be gotten from the date, can't it?

It can, but doesn't really matter. I'll probably add some kind of symbol to split variou versions, though.

[dragtom]

bump
any news?
are there too few interested in participating?

[Leodip]

bump
any news?
are there too few interested in participating?

Acually, yes, there are too few. The project itself needs tons and tons of games per day (so many that I wouldn't bother trying to get THAT many and instead continue normalizing it with the days passing by.
I don't think anymore propaganda can be done (chat, maybe? Wouldn't want to force people like that, though) aside from a trying-to-be-catchy opening post and a link in my signature (also, too many characters, I preferred linking the tutorial by using a nice link because newbies can read that better). However, we have no need to hurry, although I'd also like to get this running. If you want an approximative number of players needed, I'd say 10 (11, considering me), there are 6 (7 with me) now. If we can reach the number, more specific indications can be given.

[theelkspeaks]

I'm interested in this project once I reach the appropriate level of experience and decks with enough upgrades to play in the upper tiers of Arena.  Still grinding for now, but just wanted to say this is a pretty cool idea!

[Leodip]

Due to Atom_heart asking for it (and half a thought from my side), the project may start.

Mind you, this isn't going to be accurate because of the amount of data collected, however it'll be something like a starting point and may show interest from the community.

So, here are how this can be done:
Day and League are mandatory. I recommend writing the data in different places and posting it here when you're done with your daily playing.
Write the name of the deck you played against (not of the player who submitted it, we don't care). If you're not sure about the deck, write at least the cards you've seen or, if you understood the aim of the deck but don't know the name, go for the key cards. If you won the game before he even started playing (probably due to 1HP decks), at least write the Mark.
Doesn't require any data about stats aside the number of maximum HPs the deck had when the game started.

Tips:
You can record data anywhere and anyhow, as long as you're able to post it here afterwards. I don't care about the format it's posted into (at least not for now). Some possible ways include:
A plain text file, you can copy-paste the data here, possibly under a spoiler;
A spreadsheet, if possible, readable via Google Docs;
A table you designed yourself, as long as it has the data we need, I don't mind the order you wrote them (if it's recognizable which data belongs to which deck, day and league).
Don't stress yourself by playing a stall deck only to see more cards from the opponent deck. The number of games really counts, we wouldn't want to lose Players because they're stressed from playing games with a deck they didn't like.
You may want to post a deck you used the day of the tests in order to provide a nice deck for someone who wants to start recording data but don't know which deck works these days. Also a successful deck will probably build you more wins and electrums alongside the wins.
If you want to support the project and have some spare space in your signature, you may want to add the following code to it:

Code: [Select]

[b][url=http://elementscommunity.org/forum/farming-studies-and-statistics/arena's-metagame-monitoring-project-(ammp)/]Join the AMMP, the first Arena's Metagame Monitoring Project![/url][/b]It shows as: Join the AMMP, the first Arena's Metagame Monitoring Project!
This should help with some propaganda, always a good thing.


Well, if you want to, start getting stats, fellow Elementals.

[Zergva]

I have 2 question:

Why don't we need the names? I don't say that "the xy's deck" is important, but it's could be if 4-5 people playing with the same deck or just 1 very strong deck existing in the Arena. I think at least the first 2-3 letter will be important to make difference.

And do we need to write how 'old' is the deck we fought against? (for the same reason as the first question)

[Leodip]

I have 2 question:

Why don't we need the names? I don't say that "the xy's deck" is important, but it's could be if 4-5 people playing with the same deck or just 1 very strong deck existing in the Arena. I think at least the first 2-3 letter will be important to make difference.

And do we need to write how 'old' is the deck we fought against? (for the same reason as the first question)

The name of the builder isn't needed because it recording it would mean more work for the Staffers and the Players only in order to exclude playing the same deck twice. Also on a large scale test it doesn't matter if we face again the same player, because if we do it's a "strong" deck, and thus needs to be recorded. I see no good reason to record the name of the builder, correct me if I'm wrong.

The age of the deck isn't needed, it mostly is covered in the "HP" part.
Also, It's not mandatory to record the Maximum Starting HP of the faced decks. It is if it is under 100 HP, though.

[Zergva]

I have 2 question:

Why don't we need the names? I don't say that "the xy's deck" is important, but it's could be if 4-5 people playing with the same deck or just 1 very strong deck existing in the Arena. I think at least the first 2-3 letter will be important to make difference.

And do we need to write how 'old' is the deck we fought against? (for the same reason as the first question)

The name of the builder isn't needed because it recording it would mean more work for the Staffers and the Players only in order to exclude playing the same deck twice. Also on a large scale test it doesn't matter if we face again the same player, because if we do it's a "strong" deck, and thus needs to be recorded. I see no good reason to record the name of the builder, correct me if I'm wrong.

The age of the deck isn't needed, it mostly is covered in the "HP" part.
Also, It's not mandatory to record the Maximum Starting HP of the faced decks. It is if it is under 100 HP, though.

Okay, thanks for the answers

[Leodip]

I've played 21 games in gold, but I got to go in order to do some stuff. If I return today, I'll post the data I got. In the while time, I'm using a variant of Speed Poison Kamikaze. I think MonoAirRush will do good. Probably, SoB Air Rush will do even better.
Deck I'm using:

Hover over cards for details, click for permalink

Deck import code : [Select]

710 710 710 710 710 710 710 710 710 713 713 713 718 718 718 718 718 718 71a 71a 71u 71u 71u 71u 71u 7ee 7ee 7ee 7ee 7ee 8po

Deck I'd recommend for today:

Hover over cards for details, click for permalink

Deck import code : [Select]

7ee 7ee 7ee 7ee 7ee 7ee 7ms 7ms 7ms 7ms 7ms 7ms 7mt 7mt 7mt 7mt 7mt 7mt 7mu 7mu 7mu 7mu 7mu 7mu 7nq 7nq 7nq 7nq 7nq 7nq 8po

There are not too many Purifies around, a good number of Bonewalls, an even higher number of Rainbows, a couple of stalls and a nice number of Rushes (not too fast, though).

[dragtom]

wouldn't it be easier for staff if everyone uses the same format?
It's the reason i posted an example table earlier.