To continue eternal discussion "dominate is broken and combat is weak".
Why EC day2?
Because it's the only tournament where we have top players motivated to play as good as possible (to win as much as possible) with the best decks, so the contents of the decks will be significant factor and so there is a point to analize it.
For example day 1 got much more diverse players field, some of whom are just aming to get into top 40, so are chosing to play unbalanced decks to maximize chance to "steal" GW.
Original data from Pascal's post:
www.vekn.net/forum/event-reports-and-twd/72816-ec-day2-metagame
Obviously got no information about deck contents so have to improvise. But i think I'm not too far from the truth.
1. Deck types
Bleed - 8
Politics - 8
Toolbox - 8 (imbueds here)
Rush combat - 6
Wall - 6
Ally - 3 (khazar here)
Turbo - 1
So, suddenly, nearly total ballance here. And combat is present in like 50% of all decks. Looks not so underpowered to me.
2. Clans
Tremere 5 (both)
Mix 4
Malkavians 3 (both)
Lasombra 3
Toreador 3
Gangrel 2
!Gangrel 2
!Ventrue 2
Brujah 2
Guruhi 2
Settites 1
Assamite 1
Imbued 1
ahrimanes 1
True Brujah 1
Kiasid 1
HoS 1
Akunase 1
Giovanny 1
Baali 1
Nosferatu 1 (sudenly !nos were more present)
So very small tremere dominance, but it's a number for both cam and sabbat and for walls, ally and bleed decks, so kind of like total balance here too.
Assamites and !nos are present!
No mono Ishtarri but they (Undele) was present in many decks.
Only two prominent clans not present are Ventrue and Tzimisce. Nobody thinks that they are too weak?
No Blood Brothers, !brujah, !toreadors, DoC, Osebo, Salubri, Samedi, Ravnos.
But with 1-3 presence of all clans it all just can be statistical fluctuation.
3. Disciplines
dom 14
aus 14
pre 9
obf 9
for 8
ani 8
cel 7
tau 4
pro 4
pot 4
obt 4
nec 3
ser 1
qui 1
spi 1
dem 1
tem 1
myt 1
dai 1
Yea, DOM is popular, but, suddenly, as much as AUS. Can not remember "nerf AUS" threads (actually i remember one from ector like 10...12 years ago, when Bowl ofC was published, lol)
tier 2: pre, obf, for, cel(!), ani - one of them just for combat, other mostly for it at the same level of presentation as second best bleed discipline, multiaction discipline and best stealth.
tier 3: tau, pro, pot, obt, nec - second mono-combat discipline here equally presented as "weaker" stealth disciplines. Necromancy is cool.
Just 1 deck using kindred spirits. No chimestry even it has both bleed and stealth. Bleed is not so effective against good players?
And who got into top 5?
1. Marcin Watras (POL) — 1 GW 5.5 VP — 1.5 VP — Goratrix Aus/Ani Wall
2. Pierre Tran-Van (FRA) — 1 GW 5 VP — 1.5 VP — Euro-Brujah
2. Marius Iscru (FRA) — 1 GW 7 VP — 0.5 VP — Toreador AAA
2. Danilo Torrisi (ITA) — 2 GW 8 VP — 0 VP — Mistress Fanchon/Luna Vote
2. Giulio De Cicco (ITA) — 1 GW 5 VP — 0 VP — Brujah G4/5 Obf Vote
1 Wall (17% chance to get to the final)
2 Toolboxes (25%)
2 Politics (25%)
Rush combat is bad
So aus, ani + dom, pot, cel + aus, pre + nec, obf + obf, cel, pre=
dom 1 (7% chance to get into final)
aus 2 (14% chance)
cel 2 (29%)
pre 2 (22%)
ani 1 (13%)
pot 1 (25%)
nec 1 (33%)
obf 1 (11%)
Dominate is the discipline with the smallest chance to get you to final
Brujah, as a clan, got 100% chance to get there.
Real conclusion from all of this is that the game is qiute fine as it is.
We just need to solve card availability problem.
NC Russia
Interesting analysis, although it of course suffers from having such a tiny sample size. But it's also going to be impossible to get perfect data in this case, so I'm willing to go with it. That having been said, I'm confused about this:
> elotar wrote:
> dom 14
> [...]
> dom 1 (7% chance to get into final)
>
If 14/40 decks had access to Dominate, then how did you calculate that it only has a 7% chance to get into the finals? To me, it would be (14/40)+(14/39)+(14/38)+(14/37)+(14/36) = 185% of at least one deck with Dominate getting into the final. It would be shatteringly unlikely that none of those 14 decks made it into the final. And then 3 decks in the finals actually had Dominate.
Finally, I'd suggest that this kind of analysis isn't indicative of power level. If we look at all the disciplines that were likely used by the decks in the finals, we get the following chart:
Auspex: 3 (Goratrix, AAA, Mistress Fanchon)
Celerity: 3 (Euro-Brujah, AAA, Brujah Vote)
Dominate: 3 (Goratrix, Euro-Brujah, Mistress Fanchon)
Potence: 2 (Euro-Brujah, Brujah Vote)
Presence: 2 (AAA, Brujah Vote)
Thaumaturgy: 2 (Goratrix, Mistress Fanchon)
Animalism: 1 (Goratrix)
Obfuscate: 1 (Brujah Vote)
This chart would indicate that Celerity and Dominate are equally powerful in the game, and have an equal effect. Is that true in your experience? Is that true in anybody's experience? I guess my point is that this analysis is interesting, and if combined with EC Day 2 data from several other years might be of increasing interest, but I'd hesitate to make too many sweeping statements based on it.
But I do agree that rush combat sucks, and I think we're in agreement that it should continue to suck until it's goal isn't to prevent other players from playing the game. Maybe cards that gained you a benefit but didn't require that you put the opposing minion into torpor....
Check out my VTES blog: Gaming with BS
I also host a google doc which separates the TWDA into clans . That means I track how often clans win, which crypt groups get used, and how many people attend events. You can access all of that info here:
> brettscho wrote:
> Interesting analysis, although it of course suffers from having such a tiny sample size. But it's also going to be impossible to get perfect data in this case, so I'm willing to go with it. That having been said, I'm confused about this:
>
> > elotar wrote:
> > dom 14
> > [...]
> > dom 1 (7% chance to get into final)
> >
> If 14/40 decks had access to Dominate, then how did you calculate that it only has a 7% chance to get into the finals? To me, it would be (14/40)+(14/39)+(14/38)+(14/37)+(14/36) = 185% of at least one deck with Dominate getting into the final.
>
The math is not correct here.
If 14 decks out of 40 have dominate in it, it means that 26 decks don't have dominate.
The chances of NOT having at least one deck with dominate in finals (if it were truly random) are:
(26 * 25 * 24 * 23 * 22) / (40 * 39 * 38 * 37 * 36) = 0.099968389
Explanation: the first deck must be one of the 26 decks w/o dominate out of 40 AND the second one of the 25 other decks w/o dominate out of 39 AND the third...
The AND leads to a multiplication of the probabilities:
P(A AND B)) = P(A) * P(B))
So the chances of having at least one deck with dominate in finals are the inverse probability :
1 - 0.099968389
, that is : 0.900031611
So 90% of chances.
We're far from the 7% initially computed. It means that the whole conclusions are wrong and can be rewritten
Prince of Paris, France
Ratings Coordinator, Rules Director
Holy crap complicated math!
There was 14 decks with dominate and 1 of them got into finals (eurobrujah, cause both Goratrix and Falchion decks has it on main vampire but was not playing dom cards), so chanse to get into final if you have dom is 1/14=0.07
NC Russia
> elotar wrote:
> Holy crap complicated math!
>
> There was 14 decks with dominate and 1 of them got into finals (eurobrujah, cause both Goratrix and Falchion decks has it on main vampire but was not playing dom cards), so chanse to get into final if you have dom is 1/14=0.07
>
Sorry, but that's completely wrong
Say you had 40 decks with dominate. 5 of them go into final. According to your math, you would have 5/40 chances to get into final if you have dom. But if you have dom, you are necessarily in final since all decks have doml, so the probability has nothing to do with having dom or nor.
In fact, you're trying to extract probabilities from something that happened. It would be like saying: the guy that won the Euromillion has a moustache (=have a dom deck). 7% of the population (= the players) have a moustache (= have a dom deck). So if you have a moustache, you have 7% of winning Euromillion. That is obviously wrong.
Of course, having a dom deck have a greater influence on the outcome of the result (being in final), but the method is the same: you can't extract probabilities from one event.
Maybe you wanted to compute something like:
There are 14/40 : 35% of dom decks
In the final there is 1/5 : 20% of dom decks
and compare those results. So there is slightly less dom decks in finals that there should be. The trouble is that you have only 5 players in final, so rounding is necessarily extreme since there should be 1.75 player in final. Fractions of players are hard to obtain. If there had been 2 players, there would have been 40% of dom decks, which is above 35%. It wouldn't have meant anything neither.
You can't tell anything significant from these numbers because they are too little.
Prince of Paris, France
Ratings Coordinator, Rules Director
Regarding disciplines
Did you just count which decks would've had ACCESS to certain disciplines or did you count the actual cards in each deck that used the discipline.
A Ventrue voter deck might not have a single dom card in the deck (unlikely that no bounce would be included but still...)
Finnish Politics!
2 Ankha:
1) You failed to read sign after probability analisis.
2) Analisis of 1/14 and 20%/35% is totally the same one, so you have to drop both or like both
3) "backwards" probability extruction are totally wrong in any sample size, but still can be used for some general conclusions (that if you got moustache than you got much more chance to became NBA star that if you got big boobs, reverse of this for other industry )
Whole point of it was not to calculate probabilities, but to show, that mythes about brokennes of some disciplines/strategies got nothing to do with real situation at the top level of the game, so active members of comunity can consentrate on more pressing meters to solve.
NC Russia
> Lönkka wrote:
> Did you just count which decks would've had ACCESS to certain disciplines or did you count the actual cards in each deck that used the discipline.
>
Card use, obviously. It's kinda dumb to make conclusions from access (Lutz decks with potence ftw!).
Obviously for finals decks we have more detailed information, for others I have to guess, but generally I think example of ventrue deck without dom and other such strange things is kind of not possible in ec day2 situation.
NC Russia
> Ankha wrote:
>
> > elotar wrote:
> >
> > Of course, having a dom deck have a greater influence on the outcome of the result (being in final), but the method is the same: you can't extract probabilities from one event.
> >
> > Maybe you wanted to compute something like:
> >
> > There are 14/40 : 35% of dom decks
> > In the final there is 1/5 : 20% of dom decks
> >
> > and compare those results. So there is slightly less dom decks in finals that there should be. The trouble is that you have only 5 players in final, so rounding is necessarily extreme since there should be 1.75 player in final. Fractions of players are hard to obtain. If there had been 2 players, there would have been 40% of dom decks, which is above 35%. It wouldn't have meant anything neither.
> >
> > You can't tell anything significant from these numbers because they are too little.
> >
It is true that elotar's probabilities were wrong, and it is completely true that if there are 40 decks and 14 out of them have dominate, then chance that at least 1 will ge to the final round is cca 90% assuming that these are chosen randomly.
So when you do that kind of calculation you simply assume that players come to table they all get a number from 1-40, these are put into hat and referee will randomly choose 5 without replacement. This gives you no information whatsoever on whether dominate is stronger or weaker than other disciplines.
However, not everything is lost yet! I propose this experiment.
Let's as a thought experiment start with assumptions:
1. Each deck has equal probability to get into the final round.
2. There is no selection bias (i.e. its not that better players choose dominate because they want to win, or that they don't choose the dominate because they are unconsciously compassionate and want to give other players better chance etc. etc.)
(I know that these are unlikely to hold but bare with me).
Base on this assumption I generated 1000 trials where there were 14 dominate decks and 26 others, and I assumed the they got to the finals completely on random, and thus I generated 1000 possible finals, conditional on the original distribution of decks.
Now the experiment is this:
If the number of dominate decks in finals, is significantly higher, than you would expect if everything is completely random, that would show that that dominate is clearly OP (since this would imply that deck with dominate has higher than pure random chances, conditional on distribution of entrants and no selection bias, to get into the finals).
If the number of dominate decks in finals, is significantly lower, than you would expect if everything is completely random, that would show that that dominate is weak.
If you cannot significantly distinguish that datapoint from the random distribution that was drawn from the entry data, then you cannot say that dominate is better or worse than other disciplines.
Now these are the results from my simulation:
Out of 1000 simulations there were:
131 finals with 0 dominate deck
302 finals with 1 dominate deck
334 finals with 2 dominate decks
173 finals with 3 dominate decks
56 finals with 4 dominate decks
4 finals with 5 dominate decks
(see histogram in drive.google.com/file/d/0B00nqfllsuM_dXhEX3dkQnNqVzQ/view?usp=sharing)
And here is some descriptive stat:
Mean 1,733
Standard Error 0,034480428
Median 2
Mode 2
Standard Deviation 1,090366865
Sample Variance 1,1888999
So clearly, because in actual finals there was just 1 dominate deck, but the most likely outcome was that there will be 2, the hypothesis that dominate is OP based on the aforementioned assumptions, is out of the window.
Now with H0: dominate is equally good than other disciplines.
and with HA: dominate is worse than other disciplines.
To decide between these two hypotheses we can compare the probability that the real tournament was from our distribution which is simply based on the trials 302/1000 = 0.302 or 30.2%
and apply conventional significance criteria (i.e. Reject HA if probability is higher than 1% or 5% or 10%). We can reject HA, at all conventional significance levels.
So how you should interpret my results?
1. You cannot reject the H0 that all disciplines are equally good, conditional on that there was no selection bias, and all players are equally good.
But we know that those assumptions are unlikely to hold.
So what can we say given that we reject the aforementioned assumption? We can say this:
The evidence (from this single tournament) is not inconsistent with the hypothesis that dominate is not stronger than other disciplines. Further studies needed (give me grant money EU! ).
PS: sorry for long post.
> 1muflon1 wrote:
>
> Out of 1000 simulations there were:
>
> 302 finals with 1 dominate deck
> 334 finals with 2 dominate decks
> 173 finals with 3 dominate decks
> 56 finals with 4 dominate decks
> 4 finals with 5 dominate decks
>
So 131 of finals without dominate?
So, generally, we can't use your analisis on popular disciplines like dom/aus - nearly any results short of 5 in a finals will be possible.
Try this with "tier 3" disciplines, like nec, with 7.5% presence in the pool and 20% in the finals. It may be more interesting.
NC Russia
> Lönkka wrote:
> So 35 out 0f 40 were educated guesses...
>
You are free to collect and provide lists of all EC day 2 decks for better analisis, if you still think that there were some meaningful number of "Ventrue decks without dom".
If you bother to read the whole post you can see that there are quite clear clusters (tiers) of disciplines present (number of t1=2*t2=4*t3), so few decks guessed incorrectly will not change the picture.
NC Russia
> elotar wrote:
>
> > 1muflon1 wrote:
> >
> > Out of 1000 simulations there were:
> >
> > 302 finals with 1 dominate deck
> > 334 finals with 2 dominate decks
> > 173 finals with 3 dominate decks
> > 56 finals with 4 dominate decks
> > 4 finals with 5 dominate decks
> >
> So 131 of finals without dominate?
>
The exact probability was given before (10%). 1000 simulations shows that the divergence is still quite high (13% instead of 10%).
Anyway, you can't extract meaningful data from one event.
Considering that 50%* of game wins are due to the deck, the rest due to the talent / seating / draw luck, you'd require enormous amount of data to extract the % of extra wins due to playing dominate instead of another discipline.
For that, you'd have to collect data from every tournament and focus on the deck discipline only. The talent of the players (considering that good player sometimes don't play dominate, and "bad" players sometimes play dominate), the draw luck, the seatings would then be averaged, and the only distinction factor would be whether the deck contains dominate or not.
I don't know how many tournament data you'd have to collect, but I'd say more than a million to have a good level of confidence. (Remember the 3% error with the 1000 trials above?)
* +/- 15% depending on the reader's opinion
Prince of Paris, France
Ratings Coordinator, Rules Director
> elotar wrote:
>
> So 131 of finals without dominate?
>
> So, generally, we can't use your analisis on popular disciplines like dom/aus - nearly any results short of 5 in a finals will be possible.
>
With all the respect to you Elotar, but have you ever took statistics 101?
The whole point was to draw a distribution that shows how likely all possibilities from 0 to 5 dominate decks in this tournament was based on avaiable data.
I agree that it would be much better to have more detailed analysis with a lot better breakdown of disciplines, but for a different reason. My analysis compared just dominate against the bulk of other disciplines. It would be much more nuanced and better to compare dominate vs ausplex etc. but then that would take too long for one quick reply.
> Ankha wrote:
> The exact probability was given before (10%). 1000 simulations shows that the divergence is still quite high (13% instead of 10%).
>
I could do 1 000 000 simulations, it would converge.... here you are just arguing about volume. + or - 3% is not that bad, given that the p value was 30.2% even with a bounds of uncertanity at +-20% nothing would change.
> Ankha wrote:
> Anyway, you can't extract meaningful data from one event.
>
Agreed. But the main question of this post was: Does this tournament show that Dominate is OP or not? My answer was that this single tournament does not show that dominate is OP, respectively it is more correct to say that this tournament don't disprove proposition that dominate is not OP.
But precisely as you said: "Anyway, you can't extract meaningful data from one event."
But even given that statement, you can still say what this particular tournament says or does not say.
> 1muflon1 wrote:
> But precisely as you said: "Anyway, you can't extract meaningful data from one event."
>
Obviously you can, you just have to understand what is information.
> 1muflon1 wrote:
> My answer was that this single tournament does not show that dominate is OP, respectively it is more correct to say that this tournament don't disprove proposition that dominate is not OP.
>
This is wery useful.
I've done some simulation for nec and pot.
0 926
1 71
2 3
0 864
1 125
2 10
3 1
Interesting that for this "weaker" disciplines we are "on the brink of inplausibility".
As i already said the conclusion "disciplines does not significantly matter" will be wery usefull too.
NC Russia
> elotar wrote:
>
> > 1muflon1 wrote:
> > But precisely as you said: "Anyway, you can't extract meaningful data from one event."
> >
> Obviously you can, you just have to understand what is information.
>
Certainly not something meaningful in answering the OP question: "To continue eternal discussion "dominate is broken and combat is weak"."
Even if there had been 4 or 5 decks with dom in final, it could have been a coincidence.
I don't really understand what you'd like this post to contribute to.
On the one hand, you post probabilities that are not meaningful; on the other handyou say
> Elotar wrote:
> Whole point of it was not to calculate probabilities, but to show, that mythes about brokennes of some disciplines/strategies got nothing to do with real situation at the top level of the game, so active members of comunity can consentrate on more pressing meters to solve.
>
based on those probabilities.
Prince of Paris, France
Ratings Coordinator, Rules Director
> Ankha wrote:
>
> Even if there had been 4 or 5 decks with dom in final, it could have been a coincidence.
>
If you know something about quatium physics - there is a possibility, that in a next ten minutes naked blond will randomly materialize from basic particles on my table (or on your to not be greedy). But it will be ... not optimal... to operate on the basis that at any minite something like it can happen.
So both 1 and 5 dom decks in the finals can be a coincidence, but it'll be different coincidences - the second one will be a signal to look closer.
NC Russia
Looking on this (and previous EC Day 2) one thing seems certain for me: top vtes players (players that are playing in EC top 40) doesn't choose to play any single strategy/ clan/dicipline in significant way more than other. Assuming that they want to win and are choosing to play with strategies/ clans/ disciplines that would maximize their chances it's clear that there is no single OP strategy in VTES and it's fairly well balanced.