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.
3 Likes
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. 
Fast Track.
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)
/s
3 Likes
Deck title: Won’t Get Milled Again
3 Likes
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 = 0.4I 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.
Against Medtech?
1 Like
The other side of the argument: Have fun scoring 5/3s with Jinteki ice in medtech History does not shine favorably on that.
1 Like
Caprice and Batty in faction.
3 Likes
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.