Conclusion: TFP is OP
@kevelairn found and fixed a bug in my script that caused TFP to require 1 extra access if it was the last agenda scored. I reran and the numbers didn’t change substantially. Here is the new version if anyone wants to pick up the fix.
I think standard deviation captures the variance pretty well. Do you mean 85th and 15th quantiles? I’m not sure what the confidence interval means in this case. @kevelairn’s graphs of the CDF are informative. (And the current github version outputs the CDF too.)
I agree that average is not a great measurement in general. For what it’s worth I didn’t see a case where avgA < avgB but medianA > medianB, so the average is not behaving too badly here. I certainly don’t endorse reading too much into minor differences in average or median - as you said 20.1 vs 20.3 is probably less important than a card slot, or having to score a 6/4, etc. I get excited when it’s 17 vs 20 though.
Feel free to incorporate the code into your library.
Awesome. On the subject of GitHub, here’s where I keep my R package for parsing the OCTGN data.
Latest results: loyalty to a single ID has zero effect on your skill rating over any time horizon. Play one deck, play lots of decks, the game gives zero fucks.
CDFs are more than enough information ;-). It was good to see. You see the effect I was pointing out at low access numbers where 44GGG3 is higher than the rest, but it quickly drops off and is stronger around 13 accesses. It is a little swingy: You might lose quickly. If you don’t, you’re in a good spot.
Thanks again @jrp !
Good to hear as I live Kit and CI
Seems you dont feel safe enough to say that you would give your collection
Pretty sure Disrupter will still be really awful
Well, I didn’t say it would be good, just better.
Which, sadly, works best With 4-advance agendas (FT, IA, then AAA next turn).
Fair enough lol
Clearly, the best new agenda comp is:
59 card deck
x1 Government Takeover (6)
x3 Vanity Project (12)
x2 Global Food Initiative (6)
Deck title: Won’t Get Milled Again
I think there might still be a bug. When I use that version of the script and change TFP_PERCENT from 1.0 to e.g. 0.5, ms throws an unsupported operand type exception.
<ipython-input-10-c06d245416e9> in ms(d) 9 mean, variance = 0, 0 10 for value, probability in d.iteritems(): ---> 11 mean += probability * value 12 for value, probability in d.iteritems(): 13 variance += probability * (value - mean)**2 TypeError: unsupported operand type(s) for *: 'float' and 'NoneType'
And the way TFP_PERCENT is used, it does still look like it wants a float between 0.0 and 1.0:
if v == "TFP": if random.random() < TFP_PERCENT: total += 3
I want to do a 44-card Medtech with 3x TFP and 3x GFI, like so:
NUM_AGENDA_POINTS = 6 DECK_SIZE = 44 AGENDAS = ["TFP", "TFP", "TFP", 2, 2, 2] TFP_PERCENT = 0.4
I ran that spread with the old code while I’m tinkering with the new version. It’s pretty brutal: 26.7 accesses to win, sd 9.4.
The other side of the argument: Have fun scoring 5/3s with Jinteki ice in medtech History does not shine favorably on that.
Caprice and Batty in faction.
To be fair, we have also gotten lots of cards since medtech was released. So it might have become more feasible.
Yeah, medtech glacier has been brewing for a long time. Ashigaru, Caprice, Excalibur, Batty, there’s a ton of things you can do to ensure you have a chance at scoring those big agendas. Shi.kyu and news team, 3 of each? With gfi, they’d have to score 2 tfp to win with only 2 scores, and negative agenda points is really good in medtech, and this way multiples do even more. If they score 2 shi.kyu that’s 2 tfp and a food right there.