Jump to content

Welcome to Card Game DB
Register now to gain access to all of our features. Once registered and logged in, you will be able to create topics, post replies to existing threads, give reputation to your fellow members, get your own private messenger, post status updates, manage your profile and so much more. If you already have an account, login here - otherwise create an account for free today!
Photo

Meta and card efficiency discussion


  • Please log in to reply
47 replies to this topic

#41
phillosmaster

phillosmaster

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 567 posts

I had suspected +2 was the sweet spot, but never did the math to work it out. Good work.  That said man that -4 token seems to show up a lot :) 


  • Gaffa likes this

#42
Radix

Radix

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 303 posts

It is guaranteed. I can draw a card and hopefully get a skill icon i need. Or I can get a resource for a guaranteed +1 to a skill. It also allows you to reliably boost to 7 or 8 which can be important to defeating elite monsters or high shroud locations. 


  • Gaffa likes this

#43
Lockewood

Lockewood

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 24 posts

Working on the rest of the scenarios for hard and expert levels.  Spoilers--it gets worse.


  • phillosmaster likes this

#44
VonWibble

VonWibble

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 2996 posts

Did someone say they want charts?
 
https://arkhamprotec...l-rumors-afoot/
 
Pumping to hit 1 drastically increases your odds.  Pumping to hit 2 really turns it in your favor.  Above that... well I wouldn't do that.


I assume this is for normal difficulty? On hard in the first scenario we generally aim for +2 unless its a really important check, such as the Frozen in Fear that always hits Skids.

#45
Radix

Radix

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 303 posts

+2 is definitely the sweet spot. But if I have extra resources, I will pump it up for important checks. It gets even more important in later scenarios when the tokens get tougher. 



#46
Gaffa

Gaffa

    Advanced Member

  • Contributor
  • PipPipPip
  • 51 posts

I assume this is for normal difficulty? On hard in the first scenario we generally aim for +2 unless its a really important check, such as the Frozen in Fear that always hits Skids.

 

According to what Lockewood cooked up on Discord, the "sweet spot" (of bonuses above target number before you hit diminishing returns) on Hard would appear to be +3, but I don't think Lockewood's finalized that yet.



#47
Finalattack

Finalattack

    Newbie

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 2 posts

According to what Lockewood cooked up on Discord, the "sweet spot" (of bonuses above target number before you hit diminishing returns) on Hard would appear to be +3, but I don't think Lockewood's finalized that yet.

 

Seems to be +2 for normal, +3 for hard, +4 for extreme (with +2 being a secondary target if you can't get to +4). A simple way to figure this out is the volume of chaos tokens with the opposite modifier.  This usually correlates to the 'special tokens' modifier (Hoods, broken tablet).



#48
Lockewood

Lockewood

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 24 posts

More graphs and charts!  This article breaks down the remainder of the Standard campaign scenarios and calculates for Hard and Expert campaign scenarios in the "Night of the Zealot" campaign:

 

https://arkhamprotec...-rumours-afoot/

 

With the "Night of the Zealot" campaign, the break points or sweets spots currently appear to the following:

 

  • 2 more than what the skill check requires for Standard Campaign;
  • 3 more for Hard Campaign; and
  • 4 more for Expert Campaign.

Please note that (1) this analysis uses a range between 4 over to 4 below the skill test--I'm considering testing for 5 over in the expert modes to see if that makes a significant difference; and (2) "The Devourer Below" scenario almost seems like a midway point to the next whole number integer.  

 

I will follow up with the "Curse of the Rougarou" scenario in the near future.  

 

Additionally, I'd appreciate any comments or thoughts on the calculations themselves or the working assumptions to create the adjusted values (amount of doom per cultist or in play overall).  One can only stare at charts and graphs for so long without going number-blind. 


  • MaxDog, Gaffa, WarFather and 1 other like this