Board Game Arena

That's all the stats I have access to because I did not explicitly store much more data in-game using the Statistics API.
Obviously a full access to the relevant tables in the BGA databases would provide much more information, since they contain the full game history for each player and the full log for each game.
But that would require the agreement from the BGA admins, and (I suspect) a sizeable amount of anonymization.

I'm pretty sure we've given access to that kind of data to CGE in the past, though I don't know for which games precisely (at least TTA maybe) nor how fine-grain an analysis was conducted.

Quinarbre wrote: ↑27 August 2022, 20:45 Here are the current rates, over the last 1000 games:
Played with:

Code: Select all

Imperial   0.32
Highland   0.17
Sylvan     0.17
Everfrost  0.12
Nethervoid 0.11
Etherweave 0.1

Won with:

Code: Select all

Imperial   0.35
Highland   0.14
Sylvan     0.16
Everfrost  0.14
Nethervoid 0.12
Etherweave 0.09

General table options (random or player's faction choice, game form) remain in the same kind of levels as before.

All three expansions were marked as "unrecommended for beginners" and can be disabled in each player's options (about 17% people disable Everfrost, and 22% disable Nethervoid or Etherweave), which can account for their relatively low choice rate.
It it interesting that so many people are reluctant to use these factions, be it by default or when faced with choosing them in-game.

Win rate is still consistent with choice rate (the rates being now computed over 1000 games only make the numbers subject to a higher fluctuation, a 0.03 discrepancy is not significant).

I think Etherweave is a little overpowered. The reason why its win rate is lower than others is because people don't know how to maximaze its power.

Quinarbre wrote: ↑16 May 2024, 08:29 That's all the stats I have access to because I did not explicitly store much more data in-game using the Statistics API.
Obviously a full access to the relevant tables in the BGA databases would provide much more information, since they contain the full game history for each player and the full log for each game.
But that would require the agreement from the BGA admins, and (I suspect) a sizeable amount of anonymization.

I'm pretty sure we've given access to that kind of data to CGE in the past, though I don't know for which games precisely (at least TTA maybe) nor how fine-grain an analysis was conducted.

So does this mean its possible or it means its too hard and we will not do it?

Yes, thats true it will require anonymization. But if the tables are created in a clean way, then they should already have a good privacy protection. Ideally the private information tables (usernames, birthdays, etc) should be separate with the Tash Kalar specific tables. So giving acces to the Tash Kalar tables subset should not be a problem in my oppinion. But of course I dont know the specifics of the BGA DB arhitecture.

Anyways, I have proposed my sevices. If its possible to get the accesses I am willing to do the work. Till middle of August 2024 I am pretty busy with buisiness trips and projects, but afterwards I will have abundant free time. If there will be access to the data I can provide those analyses.