View unanswered posts | View active topics It is currently August 18th, 2018, 5:03 am



Reply to topic  [ 7 posts ] 
 Living Rulebook proposed change- making the game deadlier 
Author Message
Mini-Boss
User avatar

Joined: March 14th, 2012, 4:33 pm
Posts: 977
Location: Utah
Here is my proposal:

- Defender wins in a tie
- All Attacks gain +1 die

I think the simplest way for this to be expressed is simply changing the wording such that defenders win in a tie, and increase each attack stat in the book by +1 (including Shurikan)

There are two abilities that would need to be adjusted as well (dirty fighter and dauntless). Both would be easy fixes (dauntless brings you up to one die below your opponent, and dirty fighter allows you to win even if you are equal to your opponent).



Reasoning:

As written, I feel that the game tries to reward players for careful positioning with the threshold system for combat (you have to have X attack value or you're likely to be hurt), But I feel that it doesn't do as good a job of it as I would like (often, the odds are against you getting the result that you'd like). I feel that this is due to the last minute fix from the end of the kickstarter that changed the dice from the "winner choose from both pools" to "winner chooses from only his own pool of dice."

If the game were as deadly as when it was playtested, the rewards for careful positioning and better play go way up.

The game was mostly playtested using the "winner uses all dice" method, but that method had the side effect that the defender was often helping the attacker (more defense dice was often not good for you).

With +1 die, the deadliness is brought back without the wonky effect where the defender is often helping the attacker. I looked over many of the odds charts from during the kickstarter, and adding one die to the attacker brings the odds and deadliness pretty much in line with the playtested game, without having the wonky "high defense is sometimes bad" thing.


What do people think about this change? Is that something you guys can get behind?

_________________
Image Garden Ninja Studios


June 5th, 2018, 6:26 pm
Profile WWW
Denizen
User avatar

Joined: April 16th, 2015, 6:29 am
Posts: 289
I would certainly try it out. Your mention of the last minute rule 'fix' during the Ks is an important decision to consider - was this a good idea - what were the consequences...did it negatively effect the game even tho math wise it made good sense.


June 10th, 2018, 8:57 pm
Profile
Mini-Boss
User avatar

Joined: March 14th, 2012, 4:33 pm
Posts: 977
Location: Utah
Wolf357 wrote:
I would certainly try it out. Your mention of the last minute rule 'fix' during the Ks is an important decision to consider - was this a good idea - what were the consequences...did it negatively effect the game even tho math wise it made good sense.



Here's what I saw:

The game, as playtested was a rather deadly threshold based game- once your opponent had a high enough strength, your defense dice were working against you.

That would have been fine, but the game designers clearly believed that your defense would (and should) always work in your favor (the abilities and cards that give you bonus defense can't be useful unless they take you above your opponent's defense, and a few of them specifically couldn't).

This thread documents the numbers problem- often, having +1 die is actually worse for your chances.

They suggested the fix (that was eventually accepted by NJ) that only the winner's dice can be chosen.

Here's the deadliness as playtested:

Quote:

These are the probabilities for getting one void following the playtest rules where the winner could choose any of the dice rolled.

Key: (Attacker's dice, Defender's dice) Probability of getting at least one uncancelled void

(1, 0) 0.167454
(1, 1) 0.249421
(1, 2) 0.055908
(1, 3) 0.01329
(1, 4) 0.002828
(1, 5) 0.000555
(1, 6) 0.000108

(2, 0) 0.306333
(2, 1) 0.3332
(2, 2) 0.374211
(2, 3) 0.025322
(2, 4) 0.007426
(2, 5) 0.001836
(2, 6) 0.000471

(3, 0) 0.421863
(3, 1) 0.412082
(3, 2) 0.422401
(3, 3) 0.444321
(3, 4) 0.013941
(3, 5) 0.004888
(3, 6) 0.001513

(4, 0) 0.517825
(4, 1) 0.485891
(4, 2) 0.473255
(4, 3) 0.475121
(4, 4) 0.488249
(4, 5) 0.008509
(4, 6) 0.003395

(5, 0) 0.598121
(5, 1) 0.553241
(5, 2) 0.525661
(5, 3) 0.510735
(5, 4) 0.510303
(5, 5) 0.517852
(5, 6) 0.005742


As you can see, the probabilities for a successful void sometimes go UP when the defender is rolling more dice. That created a sort of wonkiness that a lot of backers weren't comfortable with. The game designer was convinced to make the change, and I don't think that was a problem.

But it introduced a new problem: it is significantly less likely that you'll get the result that you want.


Quote:

These are the same probabilities for the game as delivered.

key: (attackers dice, defender's dice) probability of at least one uncancelled void.


(1, 0) 0.165924
(1, 1) 0.138835
(1, 2) 0.073873
(1, 3) 0.016384
(1, 4) 0.003403
(1, 5) 0.000687
(1, 6) 0.000121


(2, 0) 0.305131
(2, 1) 0.25975
(2, 2) 0.219158
(2, 3) 0.043354
(2, 4) 0.011336
(2, 5) 0.00271
(2, 6) 0.000614


(3, 0) 0.421556
(3, 1) 0.363303
(3, 2) 0.312833
(3, 3) 0.270057
(3, 4) 0.029292
(3, 5) 0.008715
(3, 6) 0.00232


(4, 0) 0.5174
(4, 1) 0.452963
(4, 2) 0.396598
(4, 3) 0.346309
(4, 4) 0.301818
(4, 5) 0.022643
(4, 6) 0.007343


(5, 0) 0.597694
(5, 1) 0.53111
(5, 2) 0.471517
(5, 3) 0.4168
(5, 4) 0.368499
(5, 5) 0.325634
(5, 6) 0.018196



So- if you have a 1 att vs 1 def character, in the playtest you'd knock him out about 25% of the time, but as delivered, you'll knock him out about 14% of the time. With 2 att vs. 2 def, playtesters got a void 37% of the time, while final players only knock out their opponent 21% of the time, and so on (that's almost half as deadly).

Now, if you look at the numbers according to my changes:

A 1 att vs. 1 def is changed to a 2 att vs. 1 def, and succeeds about 25% of the time (about dead on with the playtest). 2 att vs 2 def becomes 3 att vs. 2 def, and succeeds 31% of the time (almost as deadly as the playtest).

Ultimately, the fix does not make the game quite as deadly as playtested (especially with more dice) but it brings it a lot closer.

_________________
Image Garden Ninja Studios


June 25th, 2018, 9:34 pm
Profile WWW
Mini-Boss
User avatar

Joined: July 3rd, 2014, 12:03 am
Posts: 877
Location: Brampton, Ontario, Canada
It's been a while since I have played the game, but my memory does seem to recall that it seemed the ninjas were hitting each other with Nerf bats.

_________________
Want to enjoy a game of Super Dungeon Exlore in half the time that Forgotten King offers? Try Lootimeter Mode!
Sodapop Lootimeter Discussion thread
BGG Lootimeter discusson thread


June 25th, 2018, 11:30 pm
Profile
Ninja Corps
User avatar

Joined: March 25th, 2012, 9:44 pm
Posts: 2459
I agree this is something to address. But it also looks like there's at solid desire for more sweeping redesigns for (at least some) characters in general as well. So, while the specific of "+1 attack" may end up being kind of moot, the idea in general, and the statistics could e very useful when that starts getting worked on as well. :)


June 26th, 2018, 1:20 am
Profile
Mini-Boss
User avatar

Joined: March 14th, 2012, 4:33 pm
Posts: 977
Location: Utah
Yeah, the nerf bats thing is a real problem. The threshold system really wants to reward careful gameplay (similar to Blood Bowl) but the dice mechanic doesn't come up with the results you want often enough to justify the difficulty of a good setup.

It did under the playtest rules- and I am trying to address that and at the same time keep the good things about the change.

Usagi wrote:
I agree this is something to address. But it also looks like there's at solid desire for more sweeping redesigns for (at least some) characters in general as well. So, while the specific of "+1 attack" may end up being kind of moot, the idea in general, and the statistics could e very useful when that starts getting worked on as well. :)



I'm not against more changes, but I think this is a good place to start (a sweeping, yet simple change). I think it would be best to start here, then start working on the individual characters and clan balance.

_________________
Image Garden Ninja Studios


June 26th, 2018, 3:15 pm
Profile WWW
Minion
User avatar

Joined: November 22nd, 2012, 5:01 pm
Posts: 169
Can I ask: what the point your trying to make here? That there's not enough KOs in a round and to much moving enemies and Stun tokens?

Because if so, your math is flawed! If its purely gauged for the chance a Ninja will be KOed, then you need to factor in the chance for an un-cancelled, mandatory-pick Spirit result too! Because that will lead to more KOs in a round too, wouldn't it?

Now if your argument is that your not rolling enough Voids on each attack so your not "pewpewing enough noobs" with each attack, and then just "math-hammer" the chance of rolling a Void while ignoring all the other mitigating factors of combat (Moon Cards, assists, back attacks, stealth, skills, stat upgrades), its disingenuous & ludicrous: you cant take a single element of a game out and balance it in a vacumn!


July 10th, 2018, 6:04 pm
Profile
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Reply to topic   [ 7 posts ] 

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot] and 1 guest


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group
Designed by STSoftware.