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 lynkfox@gmail.com with a account that can access the Google Docs and I will add you to the access list.
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. )
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.
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 = 114131211 = 24024 5 heroes, without BB = 1413121110 = 240240 4 heroes, with BB = 1141312 = 2184 4 heroes, without BB = 14131211 = 24024 3 heroes, with BB = 11413 = 182 3 heroes, without BB = 141312 = 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.
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.
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…
)