Recommend
 
 Thumb up
 Hide
10 Posts

Shadows of Brimstone: City of the Ancients» Forums » General

Subject: Monster Stats rss

Your Tags: Add tags
Popular Tags: [View All]
Martin Welnicki
Poland
Gdansk
Unspecified
flag msg tools
designer
mbmb
Hey!

Has someone tried to compile all the monster stat blocks into a file (Excel preferably )? I'm trying to create more balanced encounters for my variant and it'd help me a bunch (I don't even own them all ). Thanks in advance!
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Max Maloney
United States
Portland
Oregon
flag msg tools
badge
"If trees could scream, would we be so cavalier about cutting them down? We might, if they screamed all the time, for no good reason." -Jack Handey
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Flying Frog discourages posting of stats and other specific game rules online.
3 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Martin Welnicki
Poland
Gdansk
Unspecified
flag msg tools
designer
mbmb
A shame, really - prevents other people from fixing their games
3 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Jonah Rees
Wales
Cardiff
South Wales
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
Mockerre wrote:
A shame, really - prevents other people from fixing their games


Not really. Those people who think the game needs fixing could just actually buy the sets and get the stats themselves!
3 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Martin Welnicki
Poland
Gdansk
Unspecified
flag msg tools
designer
mbmb
jonahmaul wrote:
Mockerre wrote:
A shame, really - prevents other people from fixing their games


Not really. Those people who think the game needs fixing could just actually buy the sets and get the stats themselves!


Oh, I know, I have about 60% of the sets. I'm just lazy If I'm about to crunch some numbers to make the encounters more balanced, I'll look for the raw data first, no need to add work. Now you say I can't even post my results online
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Ondrej Kocnar
Czech Republic
Prague
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
jonahmaul wrote:
Mockerre wrote:
A shame, really - prevents other people from fixing their games ;)


Not really. Those people who think the game needs fixing could just actually buy the sets and get the stats themselves!


Thats a bit misleading.
There is a real possibility that the stats being public would be needed
for community to extensively test balance and discuss it.

However I think that nothing prevents us from posting variant stats for monsters and then for example discuss them and balance them.
Still we might sometimes want to refer to original stats.
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Njorl
United States
Rhode Island
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmb
okocnar wrote:
jonahmaul wrote:
Mockerre wrote:
A shame, really - prevents other people from fixing their games


Not really. Those people who think the game needs fixing could just actually buy the sets and get the stats themselves!


Thats a bit misleading.
There is a real possibility that the stats being public would be needed
for community to extensively test balance and discuss it.

However I think that nothing prevents us from posting variant stats for monsters and then for example discuss them and balance them.
Still we might sometimes want to refer to original stats.


I have been very curious about what we can get away with as well here. For instance if we reworked the Indian Scout, could we post a highly modified upgrade chart?

Okocnar,
I see you thumbed your own post. Therefore I think I need to take my thumb back.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Martin Welnicki
Poland
Gdansk
Unspecified
flag msg tools
designer
mbmb
Nice to see some discussion

I think that if you provided your own numbers (stats) and no original artwork, you'd be fine with the Scout.

I, on the other hand, wanted to crunch the numbers to see if there's a 'pattern of difficulty', i.e. one thing that is the most important factor in creating difficulty. I think we can safely say it's not Movement or Initiative, as most monsters are faster than the players. It could, obviously, be the amount of damage a monster can dish out, but there's Defense to factor in and also damage dealt/time (time being the number of turns a monster stays alive). Therefore I think the easiest way to determine a rough difficulty scale is that 'time', that is, survivability of a monster.

Number of monsters in a group X wounds of a single monster / Average amount of damage (3.5) = Basic Monster Survivability

So, a group of 12 Void Spiders would have a survivability of 10.3

Of course, most monsters have the defense stat, so that would change the average amount of damage. I'd have to also factor in critical hit immunity. If I'd like to be real fancy, I would cross-reference that with the aformentioned damage dealt over time... but you get the picture.

Having a rough difficulty rating would allow to group several cards of the same threat color in 'threat ranges', so when creating a Threat deck the lower ranges would go on top, while the higher, on the bottom. This would create a (again, rough) difficulty curve, making the game more dynamic and balanced. I would maybe try to link the threat ranges to the Depth track (maybe make just 3 ranges and pair them up with the rising difficulty of the HBtD roll, although I have no idea what the spread of the ranges would be, maybe 3 would be too broad).

...am I making any sense here?



1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Ondrej Kocnar
Czech Republic
Prague
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
njep wrote:
okocnar wrote:
jonahmaul wrote:
Mockerre wrote:
A shame, really - prevents other people from fixing their games


Not really. Those people who think the game needs fixing could just actually buy the sets and get the stats themselves!


Thats a bit misleading.
There is a real possibility that the stats being public would be needed
for community to extensively test balance and discuss it.

However I think that nothing prevents us from posting variant stats for monsters and then for example discuss them and balance them.
Still we might sometimes want to refer to original stats.


I have been very curious about what we can get away with as well here. For instance if we reworked the Indian Scout, could we post a highly modified upgrade chart?

Okocnar,
I see you thumbed your own post. Therefore I think I need to take my thumb back.


Sorry, must have been slip whistle Reverted.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Ondrej Kocnar
Czech Republic
Prague
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
Mockerre wrote:
Nice to see some discussion :)

I think that if you provided your own numbers (stats) and no original artwork, you'd be fine with the Scout.

I, on the other hand, wanted to crunch the numbers to see if there's a 'pattern of difficulty', i.e. one thing that is the most important factor in creating difficulty. I think we can safely say it's not Movement or Initiative, as most monsters are faster than the players. It could, obviously, be the amount of damage a monster can dish out, but there's Defense to factor in and also damage dealt/time (time being the number of turns a monster stays alive). Therefore I think the easiest way to determine a rough difficulty scale is that 'time', that is, survivability of a monster.

Number of monsters in a group X wounds of a single monster / Average amount of damage (3.5) = Basic Monster Survivability

So, a group of 12 Void Spiders would have a survivability of 10.3

Of course, most monsters have the defense stat, so that would change the average amount of damage. I'd have to also factor in critical hit immunity. If I'd like to be real fancy, I would cross-reference that with the aformentioned damage dealt over time... but you get the picture.




1)

In my mind making monsters balanced is art not a science mostly.
Some monsters are (should be) much faster, some deal more damage and some are just tougher. Some are compromise of these three.
Some monster groups deal more damage and are resilient to Trun rifles (Void Spiders) and some deal Sanity damage AoE style (slightly breaking normal scaling), are resilient to attacks that do not ignore Defense, deal low yet more spiky and concentrated damage and are also rather resilient to Dynamite.
I.e. there is a plethora of factors that are strictly imposible to compare with each other and various hero groups will feel that some groups are more or less powerful based on their classes, level, upgrades, number and equipment.

2)

Still even just art-wise it is very probable that FFP did not balance the monster groups well with each other neither with each other, heroes or as level scaling is concerned.
There can be even some strictly "scientific" examples given
For example Epic encounters are the same for 3-4 and 5-6 hero groups and
Harbinger/Goliath´s health is not even hero-number-scaled.

Edit:

I also think that a little rant that I unleashed recently is of some note here:

Quote:
Only thing I am afraid of is whether the relatively "quick" pace in which FFP had to create all this content left any room for carefull testing, balancing etc.

The base monster stats are pretty obviously half-baked, unbalanced and sometimes not overly inspired. Lack of ranged options is often noted.
They are obviously trying to fix this at least with the new monsters.
They have great ideas obviously, but often times the implementation look clunky with additions of pretty many new decks to support new mechanics.

I am also aghast at even greater initiative and movement of new enemies.
Are really the lightning-fast slugs a good solution to balance problems?
Also new balancing mechanics are added that are not in harmony with original elite abilities system. We had already seen things like this with Trun (defense scales with hero level, bosses (number of heroes health scaling), but the worst offender seems to be incoming Trederra Legionnaires who get 1 shot per Posse Level (2:15) (note that their elite chart seem in no way to compensate for this): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EnXHwL1a7yE

I really wonder if they were properly tested.


SoB is a great game, but with pretty gret flaws too.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Front Page | Welcome | Contact | Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Advertise | Support BGG | Feeds RSS
Geekdo, BoardGameGeek, the Geekdo logo, and the BoardGameGeek logo are trademarks of BoardGameGeek, LLC.