Ahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh-*breathe*hhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh!I can't submit statistics for games with the SS Tachyon in them, this is a disaster!

Do what I do, put it in as Tachyon and put in the comments that is it SS Tachyon, that way it can be fixed when SS Tachyon is added!

I jumped the gun a little bit, since we have the names of everyone from WotC.

All the environments, heroes, villains, and promo's are up on the Survey now. Playtesters, if you are using the final proofs then by all means, put the data in, but if you arent then don't :P

have fun everyone!

(if anyone see's something i forgot and or missed or see's that i missspelled something, let me know!

Civilized men are more discourteous than savages because they know they can be impolite without having their skulls split, as a general thing.
-Robert E. Howard, "The Tower of the Elephant"

I was looking at the tables on the Tableaux web page in detail today, and found something that confuses me. So hopefully Arathorn or someone else will see this and take a look.

If you look at the "Villain" tab, as of this moment, you can see that column headings are

"Villain", "Heroes Win?", "Villain Loss Pct", "Total Number of Games"

Now look a the lines for Kaargra Warfang compared to Infinitor. In both cases, the "Total Number of Games" is 3. However, the "Villain Loss Pct" is 33.33% for Kaargra and 27.27% for Infinitor. For Kaargra, this makes sense.

But for Infinitor, this seems impossible. If there are really 3 total games, then the only possible values for "Villain Loss Pct" are 0%, 33.33%, 66.66% or 100%. So where is that 27.27% coming from? Now it's possible the column is mislabeled, and should actually say "Total Number of Games Lost to Villain". If that were the case, then that would mean there are 9 total games for Kaargra and 11 total games for Infinitor, except...take a look at Progeny. Progeny shows 3 games and 38.46%. There is no whole number ratio with 3 in the numerator that gives that percentage. (3/7 = 0.4286, 3/8 =0.375). In fact, 5/13 = 38.46%. So where is the 3 coming from?

Now look at the "Environment" tab. It has columns labeled...

"Enivironment", "Heroes Win?", "Hero Win Pct", "Total Number of Games Won in Environment"

Now look at the line for Omintron IV. It shows the "Total Number of Games Won in Environment" is 4, and the "Hero Win Pct" is 72.22%. Except, again, this is not possible. There is no whole number denominator X for which 4/X = 0.7222 (4/5=0.8 and 4/6=0.6666). In fact, this percentage is 13/18, and there really isn't any way to reasonably manipulate those two numbers I can think of to get to 4.

So something seems screwy. It's easy to see the problem with the new Wrath items because the total number of games is still small. but I have to assume that the same problem exists on all the other lines, it's just harder to see.

I'm curious as to what might be happening. Thanks for your time.

I was looking at the tables on the Tableaux web page in detail today, and found something that confuses me. So hopefully Arathorn or someone else will see this and take a look.If you look at the "Villain" tab, as of this moment, you can see that column headings are "Villain", "Heroes Win?", "Villain Loss Pct", "Total Number of Games"Now look a the lines for Kaargra Warfang compared to Infinitor. In both cases, the "Total Number of Games" is 3. However, the "Villain Loss Pct" is 33.33% for Kaargra and 27.27% for Infinitor. For Kaargra, this makes sense.But for Infinitor, this seems impossible. If there are really 3 total games, then the only possible values for "Villain Loss Pct" are 0%, 33.33%, 66.66% or 100%. So where is that 27.27% coming from?

Look at the Hero vs. Villain Win Pct for Infinitor. Data is available for 3 and 4 heroes, or for 4 heroes. For 3 & 4, the win % are:

So the 3-hero game that was a loss had to have been Captain Cosmic, Guise, and Sky. CC was only in one of the 4-hero games, which was a win. Guise and Sky were in both 4-hero games (wins). Parse, PW Fanatic, and the Sentinels were each in one of the 4-hero games. Hypothetically that would give us this:

LOSS: CC Guise Sky

WIN: CC Guise Sky Parse

WIN: PW Fanatic Guise Sky Sentinels

That's a total of 11 hero vs villain matchups, with 3 losses for a villain win % of 27.27% Captain Cosmic's win rate is 50% (one out of two games), Guise and Sky-scraper are at 66% (two out of three) and Parse, PW Fanatic, and Sentinels are each at 100% (one out of one.)

I was looking at the tables on the Tableaux web page in detail today, and found something that confuses me. So hopefully Arathorn or someone else will see this and take a look.If you look at the "Villain" tab, as of this moment, you can see that column headings are "Villain", "Heroes Win?", "Villain Loss Pct", "Total Number of Games"Now look a the lines for Kaargra Warfang compared to Infinitor. In both cases, the "Total Number of Games" is 3. However, the "Villain Loss Pct" is 33.33% for Kaargra and 27.27% for Infinitor. For Kaargra, this makes sense.But for Infinitor, this seems impossible. If there are really 3 total games, then the only possible values for "Villain Loss Pct" are 0%, 33.33%, 66.66% or 100%. So where is that 27.27% coming from?

Look at the Hero vs. Villain Win Pct for Infinitor. Data is available for 3 and 4 heroes, or for 4 heroes. For 3 & 4, the win % are:Captain Cosmic 50%Guise 66%Parse 100%PW Fanatic 100%Sky-Scraper 66%Sentinels 100%For 4 heroes, the win % are:Captain Cosmic 100%Guise 100%Parse 100%PW Fanatic 100%Sky-Scraper 100%Sentinels 100%So the 3-hero game that was a loss had to have been Captain Cosmic, Guise, and Sky. CC was only in one of the 4-hero games, which was a win. Guise and Sky were in both 4-hero games (wins). Parse, PW Fanatic, and the Sentinels were each in one of the 4-hero games. Hypothetically that would give us this:LOSS:CCGuiseSkyWIN:CCGuiseSkyParseWIN:PW FanaticGuiseSkySentinelsThat's a total of 11 hero vs villain matchups, with 3 losses for a villain win % of 27.27% Captain Cosmic's win rate is 50% (one out of two games), Guise and Sky-scraper are at 66% (two out of three) and Parse, PW Fanatic, and Sentinels are each at 100% (one out of one.)

Following your example, you seem to be saying that the percentage that is shown is not...

# of games villain has appeared and lost/# of games the villain has appeared

you seem to be saying it is...

# of games villain has appeared and lost/# of heroes total in those games

That could be how the percentage is actually calculated, but that number seems unhelpful. The units of the numerator (games) and denominator (heroes) are different, so I'm not sure how you would even intepret it in a useful way. It also isn't what is suggested by the column heading which uses the word "games". Why would you use one denominator for the hero percentages, and a different one for the villains? Finally, if by chance a particular villain was played more frequently with 3 hero groups, and another with 5, it would mean that the first villain would have an artificially inflated win percentage and the 2nd deflated, even if their game win percentage was the same.

Also, if that were the case, it still doesn't explain how you go from 3 of something on the Progeny line to 38.46%. That just isn't possible. 38.46% has to be representing 5/13. So 5 of what and 13 of what and where is the 3 coming from?

I'll provide one more example. I looked through the underlying data to find one of the older villains whose percentage was an obvious repeating decimal where one could calculate what the underlying fraction must be. Iron Legacy has a pct listed of 44.57%, but when you look at the underlying data you can see this is actually 44.566544567% That's pretty clearly a repeating decimal, and some quick math tells us that fraction is 365/819. But the number of games listed there is 439. Where is that coming from? 819-365 is 454, so there is no help there. What is going on?

I believe that all of the numbers in the table are by some definition correct. But I am now almost certain that the column headings are not describing what is actually in the column.

That... is a question for Arathorn, I'm afraid. I don't understand all that stuff he does with the Tableu.

I will, however, check the actual data points for Infinitor and make sure something didnt get entered wrong.

Edit:

I think, what happened, was just a delay in all the data.

Before 1/8 (when the tableu was last updated) i see 4 infinitor games. However, two of them were on the 8th. it is quite possible that while updating or messing around with the data, Arathorn ended up with one game getting added in.

Currently, there are 30ish games with Infinitor in the data. When he updates it again, It should even out.

Nope. I'm saying the formula is # of hero vs. villain matchups with a LOSS / # of hero vs. villain matchups TOTAL.

Think of it this way (formatting is going to be horrible, I'm sure):

Hero

Villain

Outcome

Game ID

Cosmic

Infinitor

LOSS

1

Guise

Infinitor

LOSS

1

Sky-Scraper

Infinitor

LOSS

1

Cosmic

Infinitor

WIN

2

Guise

Infinitor

WIN

2

Sky-Scraper

Infinitor

WIN

2

Parse

Infinitor

WIN

2

PW Fanatic

Infinitor

WIN

3

Guise

Infinitor

WIN

3

Sky-Scraper

Infinitor

WIN

3

Sentinels

Infinitor

WIN

3

The total number of records is 11. The total number of hero losses is 3. The total number of distinct Game IDs is 3. The total villain win % (which is the header on the report) is 3/11 or 27.27% If the 3-hero game would've been won and one of the 4-hero games a loss, then the villain win % would be 36.36% for 4/11, still with 3 games.

3 of something on the Progeny line is pretty straightforward too - 3 games, one with 3 players, two with 5 players, where one of the 5-player games is a loss. 13 total records, 5 of which are a loss, with 3 distinct game IDs.

Or, thats what it is - which would make some sense, though thats now how the records are stored in the statistics file, but I know Arathorn does some translating of them so they work properly in tableu. Again, unfortunately, I'm not really certain how that works out.

Nope. I'm saying the formula is # of hero vs. villain matchups with a LOSS / # of hero vs. villain matchups TOTAL.Think of it this way (formatting is going to be horrible, I'm sure):

Hero
Villain
Outcome
Game ID

Cosmic
Infinitor
LOSS
1

Guise
Infinitor
LOSS
1

Sky-Scraper
Infinitor
LOSS
1

Cosmic
Infinitor
WIN
2

Guise
Infinitor
WIN
2

Sky-Scraper
Infinitor
WIN
2

Parse
Infinitor
WIN
2

PW Fanatic
Infinitor
WIN
3

Guise
Infinitor
WIN
3

Sky-Scraper
Infinitor
WIN
3

Sentinels
Infinitor
WIN
3

The total number of records is 11. The total number of hero losses is 3. The total number of distinct Game IDs is 3. The total villain win % (which is the header on the report) is 3/11 or 27.27% If the 3-hero game would've been won and one of the 4-hero games a loss, then the villain win % would be 36.36% for 4/11, still with 3 games.3 of something on the Progeny line is pretty straightforward too - 3 games, one with 3 players, two with 5 players, where one of the 5-player games is a loss. 13 total records, 5 of which are a loss, with 3 distinct game IDs.

Hmmm...ok, that makes sense, as to what is happening behind the scenes. It seems strange to me that that percentage would be based on matchups, but then you would list the number of actual games (instead of either the numerator or denominator of the percentage), but the math works out.

If that is what is happening, then I suggest that the labelling on the columns could use some work, or a few footnotes. I think that percentage itself (matchups over matchups) is not very intuitive, as it seems to me most people will be thinking in terms of "If I play in a game against Iron Legacy how likely am I to win?", and that number is not quite that. It seems odd that the percentage there should vary based on the size of the games lost, as you demonstrate in your example. The fact that the column lists games instead of matchups increases this non-intuitive feeling for me. On the other hand, with large numbers of games played, the proprotions should even out (assuming there is no bias in the size of games played against certain villains/environments) to be something close to the game over game percentage, where the actual numerators and denominators of the percentage are all roughly 4 times the number of actual games played.

But your explanation makes sense to me, Edge, thanks for taking the time to think this through. In the case of Iron Legacy, it is possible that by chance the true fraction is actually a higher multiple of the reduced fraction that gives that percentage. In other words, its actually something like 1095 winning matchups over 2457 total matchups, which 3*(365/819), with 439 game ids.

There could be Villain Win % and Villain Win % by Game as separate columns with the different calculations - that's something for Arathorn to consider. If you look at the Villain Win % for a specific number of heroes at a time, I think it should work out to be the same number for those two calculations.

Because villain difficulty often scales with the number of heroes (most get easier, at least one gets harder) it's probably more accurate to give an overall win rate based on matchups than by game count. If people want better estimates of success, they need to supply more data for the question. Asking how likely they are to win a game against a villain can often have an answer that varies wildly if they only bring three heroes instead of five.

I've looked more closely, EdgeDS and others, and I am sure EdgeDS is right. The percentage on the Villain tab is matchups that were losses/total matchups, and not based on number of games. When you get the underlying data, the number of records in the underlying data (which is a list the losing matchups, with games having a number of rows equal to the number of heroes) is clearly the numerator of a fraction that is equal to the quoted percentage. The resulting denominator is about 4 times the number of games, which is what one would expect for the total number of matchups.

I withdraw my objection to this as a measure, if only because it is now clear to me that the loss average by game and the loss average by matchup will always be very, very similar numbers, because really all you are doing is multplying the underlying numerator and denominator by ~4. It will only ever be noticeably different when there are very small numbers of games.

The only concern I now have is the labelling for when someone is trying to do what I am doing (some extra analysis on the underlying data).

Yeah, I've talked with Arathorn a bit on it, so he does know about it now. (In fact, it was Progeny's 3 game records I talked to him about.) I think the environment win percentages have the same issue. That nice round number of 200 games on the Mobile Defense Platform makes it stand out a bit.

I also let him know that some of the stats were pulling in 2-hero games, too, and it looks like he's fixed that.

There's also a bit of ambiguity in the case of games where the same hero is used twice. While there's no rule against it that I know of, odds are games like that are a data entry error. So then do you count it as 2 games for the hero, 1 game for the hero, or throw it out as a mistake? From the numbers I've been running, Tableau counts it as one game for the hero. (There are so few of these games - something like 39 in about 10,000 records, that it's probably not worth worrying about.)

Once I adjusted for that and removed exact duplicate records, the analysis I've been running pretty much matches up with what Arathorn is getting, aside from the hero count issue for villain and environment win percentages.

A couple other things I did notice:

- There's still one game record with "Youngest Legacy" on 3/10/14.

- It looks like there are two versions of Rogue Agent KNYFE. Judging by the stats, one of them is a lot better than the other. (I should look and see which copy I got, hopefully it's the good one. )

Civilized men are more discourteous than savages because they know they can be impolite without having their skulls split, as a general thing.
-Robert E. Howard, "The Tower of the Elephant"

I just thought of something. how the FRACK are we going to Statistic 10 new Vengeance style villains? SON OF A.... considering I think there is something like 3003 variations of all 15... gah....

Might have to change the villain input to "Vengeance Style Game" which has a sub-question of "which villains did you use" in the same way people enter heroes. Input could even be stored in a different underlying table if that is easier for people's processing scripts to handle.

I hadn't noticed that comment earlier, but since both villain order and the number of villains (anywhere from 3 to 5) matter, you get a lot more than 3003. The total turns out to be 15*14*13 + 15*14*13*12 + 15*14*13*12*11 = 395,850.

That aside, since the Vengeance 5 villains are already handled separately in the underlying spreadsheet, I'd think the sane approach would be to just continue handling it that way. From what I can tell, the main things that would need to change with that approach are:

Figure out how to handle games using villains from the original Vengeance 5, games using villains from the new expansion, and games using a mix of the two. (Or just lump them all together to keep things simple).

Extra tabs for all the new mini-villains.

While it'd be nice to have detailed breakdowns on winning percentages for each of the mini-villains (and breakdowns versus heroes, environments, and all that), that's something that could be added later. Full breakdowns based on each individual set of mini-villains wouldn't be all that useful, though - the sample sizes are too small to do that even with just the Vengeance 5. (143 games as of 22 January, compared to 16 possible villain selections even if you don't care about order.)

If you do decide to lump them all together, that pretty much lines up with dclietz's suggestion. Not my call to make, but I'd think splitting it up into Vengeance 5 Only/New Expansion Only/Mix of Both is way too much of a hassle to be worth it.

Except, that if you're playing with Baron Blade, he has to be first. I don't know if Villains has a similar counterpart, but Blade cannot be anything other than first.

McBehrer is the sole winner of this game... And McBehrer, I would step carefully should you find your way down dark alleys. More than one vote said simply, "McBehrer must die."

Except, that if you're playing with Baron Blade, he has to be first. I don't know if Villains has a similar counterpart, but Blade cannot be anything other than first.

I always interpreted the "he should go first" as a suggestion more than a rule. If you take it as a hard and fast rule, the math does get a bit messier, but it's not too bad to handle. I'm not sure anyone here besides maybe Arathorn really wants to see those numbers...actually, come to think of it, I'm not sure even he'd really want to see them.

It'd be more of a concern for lynkfox with designing the input form, based on how strict he wants to be about that sort of thing. Right now it allows Baron Blade to show up in the later slots, and there are a handful of games where he does appear someplace other than the first slot.

Considering how rarely I play against the Vengeance 5, it's a detail that had honestly completely slipped my mind.

Except, that if you're playing with Baron Blade, he has to be first. I don't know if Villains has a similar counterpart, but Blade cannot be anything other than first.

I always interpreted the "he should go first" as a suggestion more than a rule. If you take it as a hard and fast rule, the math does get a bit messier, but it's not too bad to handle. I'm not sure anyone here besides maybe Arathorn really wants to see those numbers...actually, come to think of it, I'm not sure even he'd really want to see them.

It'd be more of a concern for lynkfox with designing the input form, based on how strict he wants to be about that sort of thing. Right now it allows Baron Blade to show up in the later slots, and there are a handful of games where he does appear someplace other than the first slot.

Considering how rarely I play against the Vengeance 5, it's a detail that had honestly completely slipped my mind.

Agreed. I'll put Baron Blade in wherever the randomizer says. I suggest the statistics reflect that option. Also, the numbers aren't bad if Baron Blade is always first:

5 heroes, with BB = 1*14*13*12*11 = 24024 5 heroes, without BB = 14*13*12*11*10 = 240240 4 heroes, with BB = 1*14*13*12 = 2184 4 heroes, without BB = 14*13*12*11 = 24024 3 heroes, with BB = 1*14*13 = 182 3 heroes, without BB = 14*13*12 = 2184

First, THANKS for all the other analysis and feedback and putting up of questions (and suggestions on answers).

Second, I *think* I've addressed all of the issues with the latest version, updated today, at the regular location. I also added a "details" for heros, villains, and environments, with W-L records and percents of each, as well as totals. It looks a little cluttered, but it provides all the information. No color-coding or good sorting on those, though.

Third, I've been looking at ways to do expansions and subsets. I think I'm nearing something, but it's not quite right, so I'm not trying to unveil that today.

Fourth, the Vengeance Five are already a nightmare. If an expansion adds a bunch more...YUCK! Just yuck. I think input won't be TOO bad, since there should still be a limit of 5 of them. Still, I'm not promising any analysis of sub-categories with more in the Vengeance Five mold. Lumping them together makes the most sense, though, IMO.

Fifth, more props to lynkfox for getting all this data gathered.

Sixth, having said that, lynkfox, getting the KNYFE Rogue Agents consistent would be really nice.

Let me know if anybody has more suggestions/corrections.

Still, I'm not promising any analysis of sub-categories with more in the Vengeance Five mold. Lumping them together makes the most sense, though, IMO.

I agree, and that's how I'm gonna do it. All the Vengeance 5 subcategory page is going to end up with all of the vengeance mold villains on it.

Arathorn wrote:

Fifth, more props to lynkfox for getting all this data gathered.

Sixth, having said that, lynkfox, getting the KNYFE Rogue Agents consistent would be really nice.Let me know if anybody has more suggestions/corrections.

You're welcome! Thank you very much for doing the /real/ hard work of making the data shine!

And the Find and Replace is running /right this minute/ on the document to add the : to KNYFE: Rogue Agent... and I'm pretty sure its done!

Just looking at Deadline's games (taking advantage of the small sample size), it looks like there are some games where the heroes are listed as having won, but the game end is flagged as "HP Incapacitation (Heroes)". There's also one loss flagged "Incapacitated Hero Ability" - which is possible but highly improbable.

How difficult would it be to do some sort of sanity checking on that page for the alternate win/loss conditions, to make sure they're possible with whether win or lose was selected? Only Sucker Punch/Final Dive and Incapacitated Hero Ability choices can be for either a hero win or loss, and Relic Victory can only be a win for the players. (A blank entry should also always be a hero win.)

Also, I'm sure I've forgotten at least once to actually mark all the heroes as incapacitated when I lose by HP incapacitation. That one may be a lot harder to catch, since there are two different pages involved.

There's also a small typo for Wager Master's alternate lose condition.

Also, it looks like Skinwalker Gloomweaver isn't the only villain that can kill himself. Citizen Dawn can too, and almost did in my last game. If she goes into a turn with no more than 2 HP and plays Channel the Eclipse, it'll kill her.

Pretty unlikely, but a well-timed Suggestion or two from Nightmist can definitely up the odds.

Lots of villains can kill themselves. V5 Baron Blade hits himself, as does Friction. Prolotariat's copies hit him, does that count? Spite technically deals himself the Safehouse damage when he flips. Akash'bhuta usually dies to self-damage. Infinitor, Kaargra Warfang, and Ambuscade all have cards that damage all targets, which could kill themselves as well.

Kaargra killing herself just flips her back to her other side, but you've got a good point with all the others. (Especially Akash'Bhuta.) It's just that Skinwalker Gloomweaver killing himself is handled as a special case in the game entry form. And when Citizen Dawn nearly pulled off the same trick in one of my games, it got me thinking about it.

Unless there's something else special about Skinwalker Gloomweaver that I'm missing, which is entirely possible since I've only played him once or twice, tops.

Spite damaging himself with the Safe House I should have remembered, though - especially since I had one memorable game where the Safe House blew up right after Wraith hit him with a Throat Jab. Oops...

Well, to be honest, I only put Skinwalker in there as a special case because it was on his character card. Everyone of those other options is mostly just HP damage loss.

A lot of those special conditions was because I was curious, when i started the project. I wanted to know how often TerraLuna Impulsion beam fires, for instance - it never ever came up in any of my games against Blade, but is it common? I don't think Arathorn parses those stats into his final document, but when I did it it came up supririsingly alot.

So that's why its in there. How often does a game last long enough for Skinwalker to eat himself? How often does the Mars Base Self destruct actually go off or how often do players get lost in time? I figure close to never but...

So Channel the Eclipse and Dawn killing herself is something that just struck me as 'normal play' for her. Where as Skinwalker is an effect of his character card so it made me more interested in if it happens or not. I suppose you could also classify Channel the Eclipse (and similiar) under 'Some other card took them out (Trex, Kraken, ect) sort of deal.

So that's why its in there. How often does a game last long enough for Skinwalker to eat himself? How often does the Mars Base Self destruct actually go off or how often do players get lost in time? I figure close to never but...

Makes sense. I just wasn't sure if there was some other detail about Skinwalker that I was missing.

Unless you think it's worth adding a separate category for the villain killing themselves through normal play (and I'm not sure it is, honestly), it's probably easiest to just keep filing those games under normal winning conditions.

I wanted to bump this thread to ask for updates. What are some areas that need more data? like specific villains, heroes with variants, or environments that need more play to have a good sample size? I'm not good at parsing data, but I like providing it to those who can use it. I only have the video game at the moment, but as the expansions become available in the video game, I'd love to help add the data that is least provided.

Also, other updates I'd love to hear about: How many games are we currently averaging a month? Do games submitted from the video game have their own category?

Thanks!

Edit: Okay, I found the details tabs on Arathorns list, and if I only count the things I can do in the video game, DW Expat, DW Fixer, SS Tachyon, and GI Bunker have less games than the rest at less than 325 games each, and Spite and Cosmic Omnitron are the slightly less played villains, at less than 400 games each. Nothing stood out on the environment list with only things available in the video game right now.

I stumbled across this project as a new fan of this game. Are the stats still being updated? I've been submitting games, but was curious if anyone actually is collecting them anymore.

Anyone have a sense of how hard this project would be to generalize to other games? (I'm thinking Marvel's Legendary, which is my other favorite game at the moment)

It would be nice to hear some of the lessons learned in the process, and hopefully some reusable pieces of code or formulas.

Civilized men are more discourteous than savages because they know they can be impolite without having their skulls split, as a general thing.
-Robert E. Howard, "The Tower of the Elephant"

the sheets are sometimes updated randomly, but we always come back to them. It may go by the wayside for a while, but it always comes back :)

Lynkfox.

http://sentinelswiki.com/ The Sentinels of the Multiverse Wiki

http://mindwanderer.net/sotm/ - SoTM Statistics! Updated DAILY!

PM me if you're interested in playing with the Statistics Data!

I was just hoping to update tomorrow.... It's always on my mind; life is just busy.

"All that is gold does not glitter..."

Updated! Thanks for the reminders, all!

Arathorn

"All that is gold does not glitter..."

Ahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh-

*breathe*

hhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh!

I can't submit statistics for games with the SS Tachyon in them, this is a disaster!

Stop lurking, it makes you look like a villain target

When you do things right, people won’t be sure you’ve done anything at all

Temporary image until an H emoticon is added!

Matchstickman wrote:Do what I do, put it in as Tachyon and put in the comments that is it SS Tachyon, that way it can be fixed when SS Tachyon is added!

Thanks so much for the update and this project

I completely forgot to get off my butt and update it. ><

Super Scientific Tachyon

is now added as an option after Team Leader Tachyon in all relevant fields.

Lynkfox.

http://sentinelswiki.com/ The Sentinels of the Multiverse Wiki

http://mindwanderer.net/sotm/ - SoTM Statistics! Updated DAILY!

PM me if you're interested in playing with the Statistics Data!

I jumped the gun a little bit, since we have the names of everyone from WotC.

All the environments, heroes, villains, and promo's are up on the Survey now. Playtesters, if you are using the final proofs then by all means, put the data in, but if you arent then don't :P

have fun everyone!

(if anyone see's something i forgot and or missed or see's that i missspelled something, let me know!

Lynkfox.

http://sentinelswiki.com/ The Sentinels of the Multiverse Wiki

http://mindwanderer.net/sotm/ - SoTM Statistics! Updated DAILY!

PM me if you're interested in playing with the Statistics Data!

Forgot the end parenthesis.

Civilized men are more discourteous than savages because they know they can be impolite without having their skulls split, as a general thing.

-Robert E. Howard, "The Tower of the Elephant"

I just thought of something.

how the FRACK are we going to Statistic 10 new Vengeance style villains? SON OF A....

considering I think there is something like 3003 variations of all 15... gah....

Lynkfox.

http://sentinelswiki.com/ The Sentinels of the Multiverse Wiki

http://mindwanderer.net/sotm/ - SoTM Statistics! Updated DAILY!

PM me if you're interested in playing with the Statistics Data!

It's a kind of magic...

I was looking at the tables on the Tableaux web page in detail today, and found something that confuses me. So hopefully Arathorn or someone else will see this and take a look.

If you look at the "Villain" tab, as of this moment, you can see that column headings are

"Villain", "Heroes Win?", "Villain Loss Pct", "Total Number of Games"

Now look a the lines for Kaargra Warfang compared to Infinitor. In both cases, the "Total Number of Games" is 3. However, the "Villain Loss Pct" is 33.33% for Kaargra and 27.27% for Infinitor. For Kaargra, this makes sense.

But for Infinitor, this seems impossible. If there are really 3 total games, then the only possible values for "Villain Loss Pct" are 0%, 33.33%, 66.66% or 100%. So where is that 27.27% coming from? Now it's possible the column is mislabeled, and should actually say "Total Number of Games Lost to Villain". If that were the case, then that would mean there are 9 total games for Kaargra and 11 total games for Infinitor, except...take a look at Progeny. Progeny shows 3 games and 38.46%. There is no whole number ratio with 3 in the numerator that gives that percentage. (3/7 = 0.4286, 3/8 =0.375). In fact, 5/13 = 38.46%. So where is the 3 coming from?

Now look at the "Environment" tab. It has columns labeled...

"Enivironment", "Heroes Win?", "Hero Win Pct", "Total Number of Games Won in Environment"

Now look at the line for Omintron IV. It shows the "Total Number of Games Won in Environment" is 4, and the "Hero Win Pct" is 72.22%. Except, again, this is not possible. There is no whole number denominator X for which 4/X = 0.7222 (4/5=0.8 and 4/6=0.6666). In fact, this percentage is 13/18, and there really isn't any way to reasonably manipulate those two numbers I can think of to get to 4.

So something seems screwy. It's easy to see the problem with the new Wrath items because the total number of games is still small. but I have to assume that the same problem exists on all the other lines, it's just harder to see.

I'm curious as to what might be happening. Thanks for your time.

Hans

skalchemist wrote:Look at the Hero vs. Villain Win Pct for Infinitor. Data is available for 3 and 4 heroes, or for 4 heroes. For 3 & 4, the win % are:

Captain Cosmic 50%

Guise 66%

Parse 100%

PW Fanatic 100%

Sky-Scraper 66%

Sentinels 100%

For 4 heroes, the win % are:

Captain Cosmic 100%

Guise 100%

Parse 100%

PW Fanatic 100%

Sky-Scraper 100%

Sentinels 100%

So the 3-hero game that was a loss had to have been Captain Cosmic, Guise, and Sky. CC was only in one of the 4-hero games, which was a win. Guise and Sky were in both 4-hero games (wins). Parse, PW Fanatic, and the Sentinels were each in one of the 4-hero games. Hypothetically that would give us this:

LOSS:

CC

Guise

Sky

WIN:

CC

Guise

Sky

Parse

WIN:

PW Fanatic

Guise

Sky

Sentinels

That's a total of 11 hero vs villain matchups, with 3 losses for a villain win % of 27.27% Captain Cosmic's win rate is 50% (one out of two games), Guise and Sky-scraper are at 66% (two out of three) and Parse, PW Fanatic, and Sentinels are each at 100% (one out of one.)

EdgeDS wrote:Following your example, you seem to be saying that the percentage that is shown is not...

# of games villain has appeared and lost/# of games the villain has appeared

you seem to be saying it is...

# of games villain has appeared and lost/# of heroes total in those games

That could be how the percentage is actually calculated, but that number seems unhelpful. The units of the numerator (games) and denominator (heroes) are different, so I'm not sure how you would even intepret it in a useful way. It also isn't what is suggested by the column heading which uses the word "games". Why would you use one denominator for the hero percentages, and a different one for the villains? Finally, if by chance a particular villain was played more frequently with 3 hero groups, and another with 5, it would mean that the first villain would have an artificially inflated win percentage and the 2nd deflated, even if their game win percentage was the same.

Also, if that were the case, it still doesn't explain how you go from 3 of something on the Progeny line to 38.46%. That just isn't possible. 38.46% has to be representing 5/13. So 5 of what and 13 of what and where is the 3 coming from?

I'll provide one more example. I looked through the underlying data to find one of the older villains whose percentage was an obvious repeating decimal where one could calculate what the underlying fraction must be. Iron Legacy has a pct listed of 44.57%, but when you look at the underlying data you can see this is actually 44.566544567% That's pretty clearly a repeating decimal, and some quick math tells us that fraction is 365/819. But the number of games listed there is 439. Where is that coming from? 819-365 is 454, so there is no help there. What is going on?

I believe that all of the numbers in the table are by some definition correct. But I am now almost certain that the column headings are not describing what is actually in the column.

That... is a question for Arathorn, I'm afraid. I don't understand all that stuff he does with the Tableu.

I will, however, check the actual data points for Infinitor and make sure something didnt get entered wrong.

Edit:

I think, what happened, was just a delay in all the data.

Before 1/8 (when the tableu was last updated) i see 4 infinitor games. However, two of them were on the 8th. it is quite possible that while updating or messing around with the data, Arathorn ended up with one game getting added in.

Currently, there are 30ish games with Infinitor in the data. When he updates it again, It should even out.

Lynkfox.

http://sentinelswiki.com/ The Sentinels of the Multiverse Wiki

http://mindwanderer.net/sotm/ - SoTM Statistics! Updated DAILY!

PM me if you're interested in playing with the Statistics Data!

Nope. I'm saying the formula is # of hero vs. villain matchups with a LOSS / # of hero vs. villain matchups TOTAL.

Think of it this way (formatting is going to be horrible, I'm sure):

The total number of records is 11. The total number of hero losses is 3. The total number of distinct Game IDs is 3. The total villain win % (which is the header on the report) is 3/11 or 27.27% If the 3-hero game would've been won and one of the 4-hero games a loss, then the villain win % would be 36.36% for 4/11, still with 3 games.

3 of something on the Progeny line is pretty straightforward too - 3 games, one with 3 players, two with 5 players, where one of the 5-player games is a loss. 13 total records, 5 of which are a loss, with 3 distinct game IDs.

Or, thats what it is - which would make some sense, though thats now how the records are stored in the statistics file, but I know Arathorn does some translating of them so they work properly in tableu. Again, unfortunately, I'm not really certain how that works out.

Lynkfox.

http://sentinelswiki.com/ The Sentinels of the Multiverse Wiki

http://mindwanderer.net/sotm/ - SoTM Statistics! Updated DAILY!

PM me if you're interested in playing with the Statistics Data!

EdgeDS wrote:Hmmm...ok, that makes sense, as to what is happening behind the scenes. It seems strange to me that that percentage would be based on matchups, but then you would list the number of actual games (instead of either the numerator or denominator of the percentage), but the math works out.

If that is what is happening, then I suggest that the labelling on the columns could use some work, or a few footnotes. I think that percentage itself (matchups over matchups) is not very intuitive, as it seems to me most people will be thinking in terms of "If I play in a game against Iron Legacy how likely am I to win?", and that number is not quite that. It seems odd that the percentage there should vary based on the size of the games lost, as you demonstrate in your example. The fact that the column lists games instead of matchups increases this non-intuitive feeling for me. On the other hand, with large numbers of games played, the proprotions should even out (assuming there is no bias in the size of games played against certain villains/environments) to be something close to the game over game percentage, where the actual numerators and denominators of the percentage are all roughly 4 times the number of actual games played.

But your explanation makes sense to me, Edge, thanks for taking the time to think this through. In the case of Iron Legacy, it is possible that by chance the true fraction is actually a higher multiple of the reduced fraction that gives that percentage. In other words, its actually something like 1095 winning matchups over 2457 total matchups, which 3*(365/819), with 439 game ids.

There could be Villain Win % and Villain Win % by Game as separate columns with the different calculations - that's something for Arathorn to consider. If you look at the Villain Win % for a specific number of heroes at a time, I think it should work out to be the same number for those two calculations.

Because villain difficulty often scales with the number of heroes (most get easier, at least one gets harder) it's probably more accurate to give an overall win rate based on matchups than by game count. If people want better estimates of success, they need to supply more data for the question. Asking how likely they are to win a game against a villain can often have an answer that varies wildly if they only bring three heroes instead of five.

Glad my explanation made sense :)

I've looked more closely, EdgeDS and others, and I am sure EdgeDS is right. The percentage on the Villain tab is matchups that were losses/total matchups, and not based on number of games. When you get the underlying data, the number of records in the underlying data (which is a list the losing matchups, with games having a number of rows equal to the number of heroes) is clearly the numerator of a fraction that is equal to the quoted percentage. The resulting denominator is about 4 times the number of games, which is what one would expect for the total number of matchups.

I withdraw my objection to this as a measure, if only because it is now clear to me that the loss average by game and the loss average by matchup will always be very, very similar numbers, because really all you are doing is multplying the underlying numerator and denominator by ~4. It will only ever be noticeably different when there are very small numbers of games.

The only concern I now have is the labelling for when someone is trying to do what I am doing (some extra analysis on the underlying data).

Skalchemist, if you want access to the raw data, just email me with a account that can access the Google Docs and I will add you to the access list.

Lynkfox.

http://sentinelswiki.com/ The Sentinels of the Multiverse Wiki

http://mindwanderer.net/sotm/ - SoTM Statistics! Updated DAILY!

PM me if you're interested in playing with the Statistics Data!

Yeah, I've talked with Arathorn a bit on it, so he does know about it now. (In fact, it was Progeny's 3 game records I talked to him about.) I think the environment win percentages have the same issue. That nice round number of 200 games on the Mobile Defense Platform makes it stand out a bit.

I also let him know that some of the stats were pulling in 2-hero games, too, and it looks like he's fixed that.

There's also a bit of ambiguity in the case of games where the same hero is used twice. While there's no rule against it that I know of, odds are games like that are a data entry error. So then do you count it as 2 games for the hero, 1 game for the hero, or throw it out as a mistake? From the numbers I've been running, Tableau counts it as one game for the hero. (There are so few of these games - something like 39 in about 10,000 records, that it's probably not worth worrying about.)

Once I adjusted for that and removed exact duplicate records, the analysis I've been running pretty much matches up with what Arathorn is getting, aside from the hero count issue for villain and environment win percentages.

A couple other things I did notice:

- There's still one game record with "Youngest Legacy" on 3/10/14.

- It looks like there are two versions of Rogue Agent KNYFE. Judging by the stats, one of them is a lot better than the other. (I should look and see which copy I got, hopefully it's the good one. )

Let me know how the two rogue agent ones are spelled and I should be able to fix it

Did you get the link for the document, nineedge?

Lynkfox.

http://sentinelswiki.com/ The Sentinels of the Multiverse Wiki

http://mindwanderer.net/sotm/ - SoTM Statistics! Updated DAILY!

PM me if you're interested in playing with the Statistics Data!

Got it, thanks.

The two spellings are "KNYFE Rogue Agent" and "KNYFE: Rogue Agent", with and without the colon.

I hope she still has her colon.

Civilized men are more discourteous than savages because they know they can be impolite without having their skulls split, as a general thing.

-Robert E. Howard, "The Tower of the Elephant"

lynkfox wrote:Might have to change the villain input to "Vengeance Style Game" which has a sub-question of "which villains did you use" in the same way people enter heroes. Input could even be stored in a different underlying table if that is easier for people's processing scripts to handle.

I hadn't noticed that comment earlier, but since both villain order and the number of villains (anywhere from 3 to 5) matter, you get a lot more than 3003. The total turns out to be 15*14*13 + 15*14*13*12 + 15*14*13*12*11 = 395,850.

That aside, since the Vengeance 5 villains are already handled separately in the underlying spreadsheet, I'd think the sane approach would be to just continue handling it that way. From what I can tell, the main things that would need to change with that approach are:

While it'd be nice to have detailed breakdowns on winning percentages for each of the mini-villains (and breakdowns versus heroes, environments, and all that), that's something that could be added later. Full breakdowns based on each individual set of mini-villains wouldn't be all that useful, though - the sample sizes are too small to do that even with just the Vengeance 5. (143 games as of 22 January, compared to 16 possible villain selections even if you don't care about order.)

If you do decide to lump them all together, that pretty much lines up with dclietz's suggestion. Not my call to make, but I'd think splitting it up into Vengeance 5 Only/New Expansion Only/Mix of Both is way too much of a hassle to be worth it.

Except, that if you're playing with Baron Blade, he has to be first. I don't know if Villains has a similar counterpart, but Blade cannot be anything other than first.

McBehrer is the sole winner of this game... And McBehrer, I would step carefully should you find your way down dark alleys. More than one vote said simply, "McBehrer must die."

McBehrer confirmed to be Biomancer!

-- Trajector

McBehrer wrote:I always interpreted the "he should go first" as a suggestion more than a rule. If you take it as a hard and fast rule, the math does get a bit messier, but it's not too bad to handle. I'm not sure anyone here besides maybe Arathorn really wants to see those numbers...actually, come to think of it, I'm not sure even he'd really want to see them.

It'd be more of a concern for lynkfox with designing the input form, based on how strict he wants to be about that sort of thing. Right now it allows Baron Blade to show up in the later slots, and there are a handful of games where he does appear someplace other than the first slot.

Considering how rarely I play against the Vengeance 5, it's a detail that had honestly completely slipped my mind.

NineEdgeFirst wrote:Same. I put Baron Blade where ever he ends up according to the randomizer.

NineEdgeFirst wrote:Agreed. I'll put Baron Blade in wherever the randomizer says. I suggest the statistics reflect that option. Also, the numbers aren't bad if Baron Blade is always first:

5 heroes, with BB = 1*14*13*12*11 = 24024

5 heroes, without BB = 14*13*12*11*10 = 240240

4 heroes, with BB = 1*14*13*12 = 2184

4 heroes, without BB = 14*13*12*11 = 24024

3 heroes, with BB = 1*14*13 = 182

3 heroes, without BB = 14*13*12 = 2184

Total number of combinations = 292838

So...

First, THANKS for all the other analysis and feedback and putting up of questions (and suggestions on answers).

Second, I *think* I've addressed all of the issues with the latest version, updated today, at the regular location. I also added a "details" for heros, villains, and environments, with W-L records and percents of each, as well as totals. It looks a little cluttered, but it provides all the information. No color-coding or good sorting on those, though.

Third, I've been looking at ways to do expansions and subsets. I think I'm nearing something, but it's not quite right, so I'm not trying to unveil that today.

Fourth, the Vengeance Five are already a nightmare. If an expansion adds a bunch more...YUCK! Just yuck. I think input won't be TOO bad, since there should still be a limit of 5 of them. Still, I'm not promising any analysis of sub-categories with more in the Vengeance Five mold. Lumping them together makes the most sense, though, IMO.

Fifth, more props to lynkfox for getting all this data gathered.

Sixth, having said that, lynkfox, getting the KNYFE Rogue Agents consistent would be really nice.

Let me know if anybody has more suggestions/corrections.

Arathorn

"All that is gold does not glitter..."

Arathorn wrote:I agree, and that's how I'm gonna do it. All the Vengeance 5 subcategory page is going to end up with all of the vengeance mold villains on it.

Arathorn wrote:You're welcome! Thank you very much for doing the /real/ hard work of making the data shine!

And the Find and Replace is running /right this minute/ on the document to add the : to KNYFE: Rogue Agent... and I'm pretty sure its done!

Lynkfox.

http://sentinelswiki.com/ The Sentinels of the Multiverse Wiki

http://mindwanderer.net/sotm/ - SoTM Statistics! Updated DAILY!

PM me if you're interested in playing with the Statistics Data!

lynkfox wrote:Eeewwwww.

Just assume I'm always doing that.

Damn it, Ronway!

ah. Found the KNYFE problem, the 4th hero selection didnt have the :

and added Deadline destroying the environment for an alternate loss condition! :p

Lynkfox.

http://sentinelswiki.com/ The Sentinels of the Multiverse Wiki

http://mindwanderer.net/sotm/ - SoTM Statistics! Updated DAILY!

PM me if you're interested in playing with the Statistics Data!

Just looking at Deadline's games (taking advantage of the small sample size), it looks like there are some games where the heroes are listed as having won, but the game end is flagged as "HP Incapacitation (Heroes)". There's also one loss flagged "Incapacitated Hero Ability" - which is possible but highly improbable.

How difficult would it be to do some sort of sanity checking on that page for the alternate win/loss conditions, to make sure they're possible with whether win or lose was selected? Only Sucker Punch/Final Dive and Incapacitated Hero Ability choices can be for either a hero win or loss, and Relic Victory can only be a win for the players. (A blank entry should also always be a hero win.)

Also, I'm sure I've forgotten at least once to actually mark all the heroes as incapacitated when I lose by HP incapacitation. That one may be a lot harder to catch, since there are two different pages involved.

There's also a small typo for Wager Master's alternate lose condition.

Also, it looks like Skinwalker Gloomweaver isn't the only villain that can kill himself. Citizen Dawn can too, and almost did in my last game. If she goes into a turn with no more than 2 HP and plays Channel the Eclipse, it'll kill her.

Pretty unlikely, but a well-timed Suggestion or two from Nightmist can definitely up the odds.

Lots of villains can kill themselves. V5 Baron Blade hits himself, as does Friction. Prolotariat's copies hit him, does that count?

Spite technically deals himself the Safehouse damage when he flips. Akash'bhuta usually dies to self-damage.

Infinitor, Kaargra Warfang, and Ambuscade all have cards that damage all targets, which could kill themselves as well.

"Do you not know that a man is not dead while his name is still spoken?"

- Terry Pratchett, Going Postal

jsz2 wrote:Kaargra killing herself just flips her back to her other side, but you've got a good point with all the others. (Especially Akash'Bhuta.) It's just that Skinwalker Gloomweaver killing himself is handled as a special case in the game entry form. And when Citizen Dawn nearly pulled off the same trick in one of my games, it got me thinking about it.

Unless there's something else special about Skinwalker Gloomweaver that I'm missing, which is entirely possible since I've only played him once or twice, tops.

Spite damaging himself with the Safe House I should have remembered, though - especially since I had one memorable game where the Safe House blew up right after Wraith hit him with a Throat Jab. Oops...

Well, to be honest, I only put Skinwalker in there as a special case because it was on his character card. Everyone of those other options is mostly just HP damage loss.

A lot of those special conditions was because I was curious, when i started the project. I wanted to know how often TerraLuna Impulsion beam fires, for instance - it never ever came up in any of my games against Blade, but is it common? I don't think Arathorn parses those stats into his final document, but when I did it it came up supririsingly alot.

So that's why its in there. How often does a game last long enough for Skinwalker to eat himself? How often does the Mars Base Self destruct actually go off or how often do players get lost in time? I figure close to never but...

So Channel the Eclipse and Dawn killing herself is something that just struck me as 'normal play' for her. Where as Skinwalker is an effect of his character card so it made me more interested in if it happens or not. I suppose you could also classify Channel the Eclipse (and similiar) under 'Some other card took them out (Trex, Kraken, ect) sort of deal.

Lynkfox.

http://sentinelswiki.com/ The Sentinels of the Multiverse Wiki

http://mindwanderer.net/sotm/ - SoTM Statistics! Updated DAILY!

PM me if you're interested in playing with the Statistics Data!

lynkfox wrote:Makes sense. I just wasn't sure if there was some other detail about Skinwalker that I was missing.

Unless you think it's worth adding a separate category for the villain killing themselves through normal play (and I'm not sure it is, honestly), it's probably easiest to just keep filing those games under normal winning conditions.

I wanted to bump this thread to ask for updates. What are some areas that need more data? like specific villains, heroes with variants, or environments that need more play to have a good sample size? I'm not good at parsing data, but I like providing it to those who can use it. I only have the video game at the moment, but as the expansions become available in the video game, I'd love to help add the data that is least provided.

Also, other updates I'd love to hear about: How many games are we currently averaging a month? Do games submitted from the video game have their own category?

Thanks!

Edit: Okay, I found the details tabs on Arathorns list, and if I only count the things I can do in the video game, DW Expat, DW Fixer, SS Tachyon, and GI Bunker have less games than the rest at less than 325 games each, and Spite and Cosmic Omnitron are the slightly less played villains, at less than 400 games each. Nothing stood out on the environment list with only things available in the video game right now.

I stumbled across this project as a new fan of this game. Are the stats still being updated? I've been submitting games, but was curious if anyone actually is collecting them anymore.

Anyone have a sense of how hard this project would be to generalize to other games? (I'm thinking Marvel's Legendary, which is my other favorite game at the moment)

It would be nice to hear some of the lessons learned in the process, and hopefully some reusable pieces of code or formulas.

I know entries are still put in as this Google doc gets updated occasionally based on data from it http://x.gray.org/sentinels-of-the-multiverse-difficulty-scores.html

Crush your enemies, drive them before you, and laminate their women! - Guise, Prime Wardens #31

What would the chances be of eventually getting the app to submit data to the project? Or created their own statistics collection?

"Do you not know that a man is not dead while his name is still spoken?"

- Terry Pratchett, Going Postal

Very high. It is on their to do list.

Civilized men are more discourteous than savages because they know they can be impolite without having their skulls split, as a general thing.

-Robert E. Howard, "The Tower of the Elephant"

I was wondering if there was any way I could help update the data? I'd have to be trained of course, but was curious if help was needed?

Ask arathorn, he is the one who does all the public version now. It's still being updated just on occasion

Lynkfox.

http://sentinelswiki.com/ The Sentinels of the Multiverse Wiki

http://mindwanderer.net/sotm/ - SoTM Statistics! Updated DAILY!

PM me if you're interested in playing with the Statistics Data!

Just wanted to say, I love this tool and have been entering my games. Hope to see it updated again sometime.

## Pages