Hello there.
I have this mental disorder that makes me interested in doing all
sorts of databases and statistics, just for my own fun. During a
longish time, I put together a simple Excel-file where all vampires
currently in the game are sorted in their clans and inside the clans,
sorted by their occurrence - I've counted how many copies of each can
be found in all of Lasombra's tournament winning decks in the archive.
The list is in format: name - # of copies - Cap - group
It's up to date as of this writing, 7th Aug 2009.
If no one finds any use for it, that's fine - but in the case someone
wants to take a look of it, the excel file is here for free use
however you like:
http://rapidshare.de/files/48058566/VTES_vamp_TWDA_count.xls.html
In case you do want to take a look or use it for something, you should
take account of a few things - Firstly, the vampires are directly
comparable only to others in their own group. Group 1 has been usable
far longer than group 5, so group 1 (and 2) are massively over-
represented in numbers compared to how good they are versus the later
ones.
Secondly, It's not an absolute guarantee that a vampire is good or
usable if it appears x times - as someone has pointed out here once,
TWDA has decks that shouldn't be there (in the respect of their
quality), and it's impossible to tell if some vampires are there as
"proxies" or as emotional attachment, not by logical evaluation.
Thirdly, typoing has been taken into accord as well as I could - each
vampire was searchd for both with accents in name and without (e.g
Dónal and Donal) and some spelling errors I figured might happen have
also been considered (e.g Ehrich Weiss and Erich Weiss). Regardless,
theer are bound to be some counting errors and some missed typoes - I
only used my head, and if someone typoed Cardano as Cargano in their
lists, it is most likely not accounted for.
I'd have liked to know how much a "shitload" of tupdogs really meant...
[ quoted text not captured ]> D�nal and Donal) and some spelling errors I figured might happen have[ quoted text not captured ]
[ quoted text not captured ]> D�nal and Donal) and some spelling errors I figured might happen have> also been considered (e.g Ehrich Weiss and Erich Weiss). Regardless,
> theer are bound to be some counting errors and some missed typoes - I
> only used my head, and if someone typoed Cardano as Cargano in their
> lists, it is most likely not accounted for.
Now, what I get from reading the fruit of your work :
- Anson comes first, followed by Arika (not a surprise...) ; Anneke follows
far behind Anson (of course) and Alexandra although imposing is farther yet,
so I guess sometimes it's just AA (Anson Anonymous ?)
- Gloria Giovanni is featured more than Isabel, who's second best in the
clan, and Guillaume Giovanni has already been included half as much as said
Isabel in the short time he's been out there
- Antonio d'Erlette also has an excellent score for his time in the game ; a
little better than Carna in fact...
- looks like Chandler, Stanislava and Ingrid Rossler appeared nearly in
equal numbers, and for at least the last two probably in the same decks
Nice work anyways, even if just for the sake of it
Orpheus
On 7 août, 21:33, Dawnfire <fl...@angel.vg> wrote:
> Hello there.
>
> I have this mental disorder that makes me interested in doing all
> sorts of databases and statistics, just for my own fun. During a
> longish time, I put together a simple Excel-file where all vampires
> currently in the game are sorted in their clans and inside the clans,
> sorted by their occurrence -
Thanks a lot, ifor this wonderful amount of work.
it is incredibly useful in my opinion.
maybe some players could check this instead of complaining about
vampire contesting, heh ? ;)
On 7 elo, 23:44, "Orpheus" <orpheus.TAKEOU...@free.fr> wrote:
> I'd have liked to know how much a "shitload" of tupdogs really meant...
>
>
>
Curses! Now you made me to...
...
162
On Aug 7, 7:03 pm, "Reyda !" <Rey...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Thanks a lot, ifor this wonderful amount of work.
> it is incredibly useful in my opinion.
> maybe some players could check this instead of complaining about
> vampire contesting, heh ? ;)
Well, except that I would argue that this information contradicts the
idea that the rules for contestation provide disincentive to play the
popular/powerful vampires. 'Cause:
A) The popular/powerful vampires are the ones that show up most in the
TWDA.
B) That the popular/powerful vampires show up the most in the TWDA, it
means that they win a lot, meaning they probably don't get contested
that often.
It seems, looking at this data, that there is likely no reason at all
to consider "will I contest my important powerful popular vampires"
when deciding a deck to play at a tournament.
-Peter
Peter D Bakija wrote:
> It seems, looking at this data, that there is likely no reason at all
> to consider "will I contest my important powerful popular vampires"
> when deciding a deck to play at a tournament.
Given the immense rarity of contestation, of course there isn't.
Good to see you've changed your mind on this topic. ;)
Kevin M., Prince of Las Vegas
"Know your enemy and know yourself; in one-thousand battles
you shall never be in peril." -- Sun Tzu, *The Art of War*
"Contentment...Complacency...Catastrophe!" -- Joseph Chevalier
Please visit VTESville daily! http://vtesville.myminicity.com/
[ quoted text not captured ]
lol
> ...
>
> 162
Which is less of a shitload than Anson despite their special quality ! So I
guess Anson's a really shitty guy... ;-)
On 8 août, 08:41, "Kevin M." <youw...@imaspammer.org> wrote:
> Peter D Bakija wrote:
> > It seems, looking at this data, that there is likely no reason at all
> > to consider "will I contest my important powerful popular vampires"
> > when deciding a deck to play at a tournament.
>
> Given the immense rarity of contestation, of course there isn't.
>
> Good to see you've changed your mind on this topic. ;)
>
> Kevin M., Prince of Las Vegas
I must admit i had a good laugh :)
On Aug 8, 5:58 am, Peter D Bakija <p...@lightlink.com> wrote:
> B) That the popular/powerful vampires show up the most in the TWDA, it
> means that they win a lot, meaning they probably don't get contested
> that often.
It could also mean that contesting isn't so harsh as some people say.
None of those conclusions are really more supported than the other by
the data. But this thread should probably not be about this anyway.
On topic I would've loved to see the number of actual decks each
vampire appeared in as well, but the effort put in so far is great. I
love the fact that people have the energy to compile stuff like this,
and it's an interesting read.
On Aug 8, 1:41 am, "Kevin M." <youw...@imaspammer.org> wrote:
> Peter D Bakija wrote:
> > It seems, looking at this data, that there is likely no reason at all
> > to consider "will I contest my important powerful popular vampires"
> > when deciding a deck to play at a tournament.
>
> Given the immense rarity of contestation, of course there isn't.
<sound of a fishing line being cast>
Of course this doesn't' disprove that the penalty is
disproportionately harsh.
On Aug 8, 2:41 am, "Kevin M." <youw...@imaspammer.org> wrote:
> Given the immense rarity of contestation, of course there isn't.
And given the disproportionately harsh penalty for contestation, it
makes sense to fix it :-)
> Good to see you've changed your mind on this topic. ;)
Well, no, I'm just continuing to question the argument of:
"It is good that contestation is so harsh, as it makes people not play
the popular/powerful vampires!"
'Cause clearly, it doesn't.
-Peter
On Aug 7, 3:33 pm, Dawnfire <fl...@angel.vg> wrote:
> In case you do want to take a look or use it for something, you should
> take account of a few things - Firstly, the vampires are directly
> comparable only to others in their own group. Group 1 has been usable> far longer than group 5, [...]> Secondly, It's not an absolute guarantee that a vampire is good or
> usable if it appears x times - as someone has pointed out here once,> TWDA has decks that shouldn't be there [...]
A third factor to consider: large vampires tend to appear in larger
numbers in crypts, even thought the player plans to bring only one
copy into play. This is because the cost of multiples is reduced for
large vampires. A player running 10-caps is less likely to aspire to
getting as many as 4 minions into play.
henrik <www.h...@gmail.com> writes:
> On Aug 8, 5:58 am, Peter D Bakija <p...@lightlink.com> wrote:
>
> > B) That the popular/powerful vampires show up the most in the TWDA, it
> > means that they win a lot, meaning they probably don't get contested
> > that often.
>
>
> It could also mean that contesting isn't so harsh as some people say.
No, it doesn't mean that.
Being killed or crippled by a drunk driver is very rare, yet it's extremely
harsh.
And we *do* have laws against driving drunk. Not because the consequences
are common, but because they are so severe.
HG
>"It is good that contestation is so harsh, as it makes people not play
>the popular/powerful vampires!">'Cause clearly, it doesn't.
It also implies that the penalty for contesting is far too lenient,
since people apparently only play the popular vampires accepting the
minimal risk.
[ quoted text not captured ]
No.
The penalty for having a contestable card in your uncontrolled region that
someone else had in play could be "instant game loss" and it would still provide
no more deterrent to playing popular/powerful vampires. There are simply too
many good vampires in the game to meaningfully use that as a deck-building
criteria, and even if one did, that quickly turns into "I know that you know
that I know that you know...", which renders the whole thing even less
applicable in practice.
[ quoted text not captured ]
Anyway, contesting is a pretty severe rule, and it can totally screw up your
game, so I wouldn't call that "lenient". Dropping it could benefit the
strategic part of the game, but still it might be a small deterrent for some
really popular vampires, and on the Roleplaying part I would really dislike
seeing identical vampires hit the table silmutaneously. So I guess it's fine
as is... Until someone can propose a better rule !
Orpheus
On Aug 9, 8:33 am, h...@iki.fi (Janne Hägglund) wrote:
> > > B) That the popular/powerful vampires show up the most in the TWDA, it
> > > means that they win a lot, meaning they probably don't get contested
> > > that often.
>
> > It could also mean that contesting isn't so harsh as some people say.
>
> No, it doesn't mean that.
I know. My point was mostly that the information doesn't mention
contesting at all, so it's possible that some of the most played
vampires were contested during some of the tournaments in which they
won (maybe even in the final round sometime). Which would indicate
that contesting isn't too harsh.
But again, the data doesn't say anything about contesting, so I don't
think any conclusion about those things can be made from it. Still a
good and fun read though.
[ quoted text not captured ]
Would be interesting to see an analysis factoring in age of vampire in
terms of release into the game. In other words, Anson is 15 years old,
and has 173 iterations. So that's a number like 11.5333. Tupdog is 4
years old and has 162 iterations, so that number is 40.5. Arika is 13
years old and has 153 iteratinos for a number: 11.769. Antonio
D'Erlette - 69 iterations in 3 years, so that's 23. What I'm getting at
is some sort of constant that factors in for length of time vamp has
been in circulation...
best -
chris
[ quoted text not captured ]
Yeah, sure, but then there are so many other factors ! How many players were
active in tournaments when Anson came out ? How many posted their results
where Lasombra could see them ? How many for Arika ? Tuppies ? I think this
could lead fast to false impressions.
Too bad, the idea in itself is interesting, I just don't think we would come
up with accurate results.
Orph