Some EC day2 analisis
10 Mar 2016 13:09 #75916
by elotar
You are free to collect and provide lists of all EC day 2 decks for better analisis, if you still think that there were some meaningful number of "Ventrue decks without dom".
If you bother to read the whole post you can see that there are quite clear clusters (tiers) of disciplines present (number of t1=2*t2=4*t3), so few decks guessed incorrectly will not change the picture.
NC Russia
Replied by elotar on topic Some EC day2 analisis
So 35 out 0f 40 were educated guesses...
You are free to collect and provide lists of all EC day 2 decks for better analisis, if you still think that there were some meaningful number of "Ventrue decks without dom".
If you bother to read the whole post you can see that there are quite clear clusters (tiers) of disciplines present (number of t1=2*t2=4*t3), so few decks guessed incorrectly will not change the picture.
NC Russia
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
10 Mar 2016 13:16 - 10 Mar 2016 13:20 #75917
by Ankha
Anyway, you can't extract meaningful data from one event.
Considering that 50%* of game wins are due to the deck, the rest due to the talent / seating / draw luck, you'd require enormous amount of data to extract the % of extra wins due to playing dominate instead of another discipline.
For that, you'd have to collect data from every tournament and focus on the deck discipline only. The talent of the players (considering that good player sometimes don't play dominate, and "bad" players sometimes play dominate), the draw luck, the seatings would then be averaged, and the only distinction factor would be whether the deck contains dominate or not.
I don't know how many tournament data you'd have to collect, but I'd say more than a million to have a good level of confidence. (Remember the 3% error with the 1000 trials above?)
* +/- 15% depending on the reader's opinion
Replied by Ankha on topic Some EC day2 analisis
The exact probability was given before (10%). 1000 simulations shows that the divergence is still quite high (13% instead of 10%).
Out of 1000 simulations there were:
302 finals with 1 dominate deck
334 finals with 2 dominate decks
173 finals with 3 dominate decks
56 finals with 4 dominate decks
4 finals with 5 dominate decks
So 131 of finals without dominate?
Anyway, you can't extract meaningful data from one event.
Considering that 50%* of game wins are due to the deck, the rest due to the talent / seating / draw luck, you'd require enormous amount of data to extract the % of extra wins due to playing dominate instead of another discipline.
For that, you'd have to collect data from every tournament and focus on the deck discipline only. The talent of the players (considering that good player sometimes don't play dominate, and "bad" players sometimes play dominate), the draw luck, the seatings would then be averaged, and the only distinction factor would be whether the deck contains dominate or not.
I don't know how many tournament data you'd have to collect, but I'd say more than a million to have a good level of confidence. (Remember the 3% error with the 1000 trials above?)
* +/- 15% depending on the reader's opinion
Prince of Paris, France
Ratings Coordinator, Rules Director
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
10 Mar 2016 14:05 - 10 Mar 2016 14:06 #75920
by elotar
Obviously you can, you just have to understand what is information.
This is wery useful.
I've done some simulation for nec and pot.
0 926
1 71
2 3
0 864
1 125
2 10
3 1
Interesting that for this "weaker" disciplines we are "on the brink of inplausibility".
As i already said the conclusion "disciplines does not significantly matter" will be wery usefull too.
NC Russia
Replied by elotar on topic Some EC day2 analisis
But precisely as you said: "Anyway, you can't extract meaningful data from one event."
Obviously you can, you just have to understand what is information.
My answer was that this single tournament does not show that dominate is OP, respectively it is more correct to say that this tournament don't disprove proposition that dominate is not OP.
This is wery useful.
I've done some simulation for nec and pot.
0 926
1 71
2 3
0 864
1 125
2 10
3 1
Interesting that for this "weaker" disciplines we are "on the brink of inplausibility".
As i already said the conclusion "disciplines does not significantly matter" will be wery usefull too.
NC Russia
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
10 Mar 2016 14:44 - 10 Mar 2016 14:44 #75921
by Ankha
Even if there had been 4 or 5 decks with dom in final, it could have been a coincidence.
I don't really understand what you'd like this post to contribute to.
On the one hand, you post probabilities that are not meaningful; on the other handyou say
based on those probabilities.
Replied by Ankha on topic Some EC day2 analisis
Certainly not something meaningful in answering the OP question: "To continue eternal discussion "dominate is broken and combat is weak"."
But precisely as you said: "Anyway, you can't extract meaningful data from one event."
Obviously you can, you just have to understand what is information.
Even if there had been 4 or 5 decks with dom in final, it could have been a coincidence.
I don't really understand what you'd like this post to contribute to.
On the one hand, you post probabilities that are not meaningful; on the other handyou say
Whole point of it was not to calculate probabilities, but to show, that mythes about brokennes of some disciplines/strategies got nothing to do with real situation at the top level of the game, so active members of comunity can consentrate on more pressing meters to solve.
based on those probabilities.
Prince of Paris, France
Ratings Coordinator, Rules Director
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
Time to create page: 0.105 seconds
- You are here:
-
Home
-
Foro
-
V:TES Discussion
-
Card Balance & Strategy Discussion
- Some EC day2 analisis