Ok, first of all I have reached 500 games with Ghostal (those stats include the 206 games I've played previously):
| deck | Fast-Draw Ghostal |
| players | 10 men |
Statmasta™realtec
Stats from someone else would still be nice of course.
Awesome work.
Stats from at least two different players would indeed be great ... not only for this deck.
So far, it seems that in the very most cases no two players played the same deck alike ... FGeis were always shifted, sometimes significantly.
Then I also have some questions/suggestions on the Statmasta:
- Knowing how much time it takes to quit or to spin is not only interesting for skips, you also spend some time in any game on leaving, entering a new game and doing your spin. Does the Statmasta currently factor those times in? Otherwise FGeis are a little too high of course as you also always spend some time outside the game.
That is actually a very good point.
The Statmasta as such doesn't factor these times in since recording times is, in the product idea and implementation of the Statmasta,
an optional choice when taking deck-stats (hell, outside of this thread most people stick to the win-rate thing as it seems).
As such, it is merely a matter of which times the player enters on the input-sheet and there is no additional flat-rate-time coded.
In this study, testers have only recorded the times as they show up on the details screen after the game.
I am guessing the timer starts when the coin-toss is decided and ends when a player reaches 0 HPs.
So effectively the time to click "false god", to wait for the coin-toss, to maybe click "details", to click "spin",
to wait for the spin and to finally click "ok" is not accounted for.
Looking at it that way I'm thinking: "Right ... why should skips have a timer on this when wins and losses don't?"
On the other hand, in skips, you don't get anything for that time ... just lost time until you finally play a real match.
Nobody has ever skipped as aggressively as we will be simulating it here and traditionally decks have been evaluated
by their performance against all gods.
So strictly spoken, timing skips with anything higher than 0 sec would be a penalty. Perhaps a fair penalty but a penalty.
Personally, I am undecided on this one. On a sidenote, the Statmasta needs a min. time of 1 second because the
way I did the formulas it can't handle a 0 right now.
- Does it give you the extra 5 coins you get in the spin when the first two cards match? Ask Dark Weaver for the probabilities, I think they're not difficult if you already have the probability for 3 matching cards.
- Does it factor in the different prices of winnable cards? For example Divine Glory's spins are more valuable because she drops Miracle and Morning Glory which both sell for about 150 
more than normal cards.
I guess these things have been considered neglectable so far.
As of now, the Statmasta assumes a flat-rate 1160 electrum for each
card won.
This is the average card-sell value + 5 electrum for the triple-spin, so this coin is factored in as long as you get the card.
Card-values:I somehow calculated the average ages ago. It certainly doesn't factor in the distribution of the actual cards won based
on probabilities. For all I know, the first usable data on that was produced by DarkWeaver and the Drop-rate study just recently.
But this could make a notable difference, even outside of the obvious cases of DG, Osiris and Octane.
Double-spins:If we take a 50% win-rate, 2min/game deck (very good deck)
and assume the average cardwin-rate of 47.7% (DarkWeaver) we got in an hour:
30 games
15 wins
15 x .477 = 7 wins accounted for (triple-spins)
8 wins unaccounted for (double-spins)
The question is how many wins with double-spins there are in these 8 games on average?
Four? Then it would a missing ~20 FGei per hour and less for worse decks.
This is not very much but still worth putting in.
I did a little experiment with my data and replaced the games of one god after another with 5 second long skips starting with the least profitable and looked at which point the FGei did not increase. It increased all the way up to Lionheart (!), a god against whom I had an above average FGei and 100% winrate. So it seems that if you're really serious about optimizing money gain (and don't care about your win/loss ratio at all 
), the best way is in fact cherrypicking the gods with the absolute highest profitability and playing only those. The entry cost of 30 electrum is just too low compared to the possible winnings.
The funny thing is: Lionheart is already well over the average and still gets to go.
How would you call this procedure? "Progressive"?
But yeah, that is pretty much the question here:
How far should this go? What should be the measurement for a skip/should play god?
The skips-stats were intended as a practical farming-guide and less as a mathematical showcase
how far you can optimize by shaving off the last bit of common sense and exploiting every god
that only has some five games played against.
Another question is: What is usability-wise doable?
Perhaps, designating as many gods as you can looks good on paper but just sucks when
in praxis you wind up having to skip 15 gods ...
Looking at e.g. Gumbehs views on that, he has a much more "down to earth" stance when it
comes to what is worth your time and what is not.
All that having said, the question how acceptable it is to sacrifice score at the gain of just
a bit more electrum isn't even being considered in all this yet.
What's important here though is to have a very good measurement of your FGei in its meaning as Electrum/hour. I would advise to implement the above mentioned features first and take only decks wit at least 500 plays.
Concerning
- Card-values, I think I have to wait for some more conclusive data on this
(and somebody who adds it all up I guess ...)
- Double-spins, I will put those in with the next update (and when I know how many of these there actually are of course)
Other than that, I don't really understand what you are getting at by "good measurement of you FGei and its meaning" ...?
As for 500 games min. to implement skips, kirch also considers this best-practice, but:
What are we going to do with the decks that are below that, and probably always will be
because nobody is going to test them anymore? Certain skips certainly will be very visible
even with few games, which is, what I thought, the staggered skip-implementation could
still be useful for.
I would not even consider putting any of the decks with less than 500 games through your machine. As this threshold is reached, more decks can be added.
20 or 25% seems reasonable. I would play with it a little if I was you and see how it turns out. I think a percentage-based number is the best way to compare decks uniformly as this creates a nice broad smoothing effect.
For upped decks we could have a flat threshold - 2800 FGei or bust, for example. I think a more tailored approach to each deck is going to be the most correct, though.
[...]
Maybe a system that starts with 25% below, but looks at the amount of games played against that god (the accuracy of the stats), and lowers the percentage when the amount of games are higher (against that specific god).
example: 5-10 games played has the border of 25%, 10-15 makes 20%, 15-20 makes 15%, 20-25 makes 10%
Yeah, I also think it should be tailored in as the skips considering each deck on its own and the best way to
optimize its performance. Otherwise, bad decks would kind of just land in the waste-basket when really
even with them you can farm (because its fun or whyever) and perform just a bit better by making the right skip-choices.
Then again, the smoothing effect kirch mentioned and that all decks are held by the same standard is pretty important.
I find Gumbehs idea to take the accuracy/reliability of the stats for each god as a measurement is pretty awesome here:
The more reliable a gods stats are, the harsher the skip-god threshold can be.
For barely played decks, this could mean that at least for a handful of gods, there
can be made a somewhat reliable prediction whether they are worth it or not, even
if the rest of the gods better be left alone.
