Recommend
12 
 Thumb up
 Hide
31 Posts
1 , 2  Next »   | 

Terra Mystica» Forums » Strategy

Subject: Fakirs opening statistics - revisited rss

Your Tags: Add tags
Popular Tags: [View All]
Robert
Germany
Bocholt
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Fakirs opening statistics revisited
(data collected via https://flat1701.github.io/tmstats/; if you don't understand the abbreviations, look up the reference here: *click*)

Unless stated otherwise in the text, the statistics use the following filters:
* 4p games
* played by players rated >= 1100 (i.e. "Rating Quartile" is set to "Best + Good")
* original map
* Cultists Errata
* no F&I factions allowed (and thus no present )
* even in stats which include games that allowed F&I factions (e.g. "All factions"), my stats never include games which allowed variable factions before the official rule update ("v5")
* no additional scoring (Outposts aka "edge", distance, SA/SH distance, Settlements aka "clusters")
* don't care about whether the game allowed VTO, TW6-8, BON10, or TE>>4 round scoring

These filters pretty much represent the settings of a 4p game with the TM base game (plus VTO and mini-expansions) as it's used in the Terra Mystica tournament. You may rightfully argue that VTO or the presence of some mini-expansion (or not) will affect the chances of a faction, but the sample sizes just get too small and the differences are not overly relevant (and where I suspect they may be, e.g. BON10 and Mermaids, I'll check). This is about round 1 where only the starting order matters, so VTO (variable turn order) or not is less relevant.

The data lines focus on the relevant information - most filters will be mentioned in the text instead. All observations should be taken with a grain of salt, as some of the sample sizes are quite small.

The main comparisons are based on the column labeled "Margin". It contains the VP difference of the given faction compared to the average VPs in the game. So if a game between factions A, B, C and D ends 130:120:110:100VP, then the average VP count is 115VP, and the margins are +15, +5, -5 and -15 for factions A, B, C and D respectively. If another game between the same factions ends 150:140:130:120, the respective margins will be exactly the same.
Still there is also a column labeled "VP" which gives the average VPs in the given scenario. Both "VP" and

"Margin" come with an indicator of an error range (the number behind the '±') - the smaller this number, the more reliable is the value itself. This is usually correlated with the number of samples which are given in the "Count" column: a low number of samples (less than 50 or so) can be tainted much easier by some freak results than a large sample size.

Included in "Observation 1" is a benchmark for games played by the remaining players (I'll refer to this group as "rated less than 1100" even though it includes unrated players too): the delta between their average with all factions compared to the faction whose openings I'm checking may give an indication how "difficult"/"forgiving" the faction is.

Observation 1: Fakirs are a very-much-below-average faction. I guess that the readers of this forum aren't surprised about this fact. The only map where they don't do totally bad is on F&I side 1 (keep in mind that the stats are only for games without expansion scoring, though the Fakirs actually get a worse margin on F&I side 1 if expansion scoring is enabled).
With tournament settings, the Fakir margin of good players is a whopping 8 VP lower than for the average faction. No wonder that the sample size is very small with just 454 games. This means that all following observations break down this small data set into even smaller subsets, which means that the margin of error is higher than in the opening stats for other factions, and less meaningful.
Desc. VP Margin Count
ORIGINAL MAP
games played by players rated >= 1100
All factions 128.58 ± 0.09 6.01 ± 0.09 33615
No F&I factions 128.62 ± 0.09 6.01 ± 0.09 33058
Fakirs 117.14 ± 0.73 -2.15 ± 0.74 454 (set for further analysis)

games played by players rated less than 1100
All factions 108.96 ± 0.10 -5.40 ± 0.09 37453
No F&I factions 108.97 ± 0.10 -5.42 ± 0.09 36718
Fakirs 96.71 ± 0.82 -15.92 ± 0.80 517

NEW F&I MAP ("side 1")
games played by players rated >= 1100
All factions 126.00 ± 0.52 5.29 ± 0.50 1129
No F&I factions 127.77 ± 0.67 6.12 ± 0.64 702
Fakirs 125.52 ± 2.99 3.97 ± 2.85 25

games played by players rated less than 1100
All factions 107.44 ± 0.57 -4.66 ± 0.52 1283
No F&I factions 108.19 ± 0.67 -4.54 ± 0.62 946
Fakirs 102.81 ± 3.12 -8.73 ± 2.87 31

REVISED MAP ("side 2")
games played by players rated >= 1100
All factions 128.38 ± 0.48 5.63 ± 0.45 1296
No F&I factions 129.35 ± 0.58 6.63 ± 0.55 859
Fakirs 116.89 ± 2.58 -5.38 ± 2.88 18

games played by players rated less than 1100
All factions 107.26 ± 0.61 -6.23 ± 0.52 1699
No F&I factions 108.59 ± 0.58 -5.16 ± 0.53 1105
Fakirs 100.46 ± 2.64 -10.12 ± 3.51 28



Observation 2: Given their special ability of carpet flight, Fakirs need some source for priests.
One obvious approach would be to build a SH (which gives one priest as income plus a distance extension for the carpet flight), but that's not a good idea, at least not for round 1, as the SH is horribly expensive.
The vast majority (80%) of the Fakir players in this sample chose to build a temple, 13 players even managed to build two temples and 9 upgraded the first TE to SA in round 1. Temple builders fare better than average Fakirs, but still significantly worse than average factions.
Looking at the breakdown of temple-building Fakirs, the only way to get closer to the competitive range seems to be ending round 1 with three dwellings and a temple.
Note 1: Nine Fakirs started with their SA, six of them with a SH>>5, 2 Air->1w scoring, and three of these six used BON5 (+1w, +3pw).
Note 2: 16 Fakirs managed a "dwelling rush", if you can call ending round 1 with 4 or 5 dwellings that. Bonus tiles of choice were BON1 (spade, 7 instances) or BON8 (priest, 5 instances).
Desc. VP Margin Count
SH 105.86 ± 2.08 -10.43 ± 2.38 37
SA 121.11 ± 5.06 -0.11 ± 3.05 9
TE 118.67 ± 0.83 -1.20 ± 0.85 354
no TE/SA/SH 114.19 ± 1.88 -3.04 ± 2.03 54

breakdown of temple builders:
2TE 121.31 ± 4.41 1.29 ± 3.32 13
TPTE 116.15 ± 2.02 -1.85 ± 2.11 48
* 0DTPTE 112.80 ± 3.56 -4.68 ± 3.17 15
* 1DTPTE 116.56 ± 2.25 -1.48 ± 2.63 32
* 2DTPTE 153.00 ± NaN 28.75 ± NaN 1
D0TPTE 112.19 ± 2.23 -6.43 ± 2.14 67
2D0TPTE 120.07 ± 1.15 -0.40 ± 1.24 167
3D0TPTE 123.51 ± 1.71 2.47 ± 1.86 59

breakdown of non-TE/SH builders:
3TP0TE 117.00 ± NaN 8.00 ± NaN 1
2TP0TE 114.13 ± 4.04 -4.22 ± 3.71 15
* 0D2TP0TE 139.00 ± NaN 11.25 ± NaN 1
* D2TP0TE 110.27 ± 3.22 -4.91 ± 3.36 11
* 2D2TP0TE 120.00 ± 15.28 -6.83 ± 15.17 3
TP0TE 117.44 ± 2.46 -0.64 ± 3.61 16
* 2DTP0TE 118.64 ± 2.73 -0.14 ± 4.33 11
* 3DTP0TE 114.80 ± 5.43 -1.75 ± 7.29 5

3D0TP0TE0SA0SH 100.00 ± 6.22 -17.58 ± 4.21 6
4D0TP0TE0SA0SH 118.15 ± 3.07 3.87 ± 3.89 13
5D0TP0TE0SA0SH 107.33 ± 12.24 -14.42 ± 7.45 3



Observation 3: The most popular starting bonus tile for Fakirs is the spade tile (BON1, 43%), followed by BON5 (3pw, 1w) and BON8 (priest)s with ca. 16% each. The popularity of BON1 seems justified, as it delivers the best margin, especially if you also build a temple.
Desc. VP Margin Count
BON1 (Spade) 121.56 ± 1.02 1.01 ± 1.09 194
* TE 122.59 ± 1.06 1.75 ± 1.15 174
* only D 111.50 ± 4.19 -4.20 ± 5.03 10
BON2 (Cult) 110.21 ± 3.18 -5.09 ± 2.79 33
BON3 (6C) 113.68 ± 3.20 -0.64 ± 2.97 25
BON4 (Ship+1) 121.33 ± 5.44 -0.42 ± 4.52 9
BON5 (3pw,1W) 114.97 ± 1.69 -2.20 ± 1.82 77
* TE 115.71 ± 1.96 -3.10 ± 2.21 55
BON6 (SA/SH VP) 109.43 ± 2.26 -11.08 ± 2.33 35
BON7 (TP VP) 116.33 ± 8.37 -3.88 ± 4.26 6
BON8 (1P) 115.26 ± 1.87 -5.12 ± 2.02 70
* TE 115.08 ± 2.41 -5.89 ± 2.61 50
* only D 119.00 ± 5.90 -1.46 ± 6.91 6
BON10 (Ship VP) 115.80 ± 8.59 -8.65 ± 7.11 5



Observation 4: 40% of the Fakirs are picked from all the last seat, i.e. when the competing factions are known and the player can be sure to get the desired bonus tile (which in three out of four such games is the spade tile, i.e. BON1 - significantly improving the margin). Seat #4 leads to the best margin (relatively speaking ), though interestingly they do about just as well when picked from seat #2.
Desc. VP Margin Count
seat 1 114.62 ± 1.87 -2.85 ± 1.63 66
seat 2 116.50 ± 1.60 -2.13 ± 1.84 86
seat 3 117.08 ± 1.61 -1.90 ± 1.59 118
seat 4 118.38 ± 1.08 -2.06 ± 1.11 184
* BON1 (Spade) 120.66 ± 1.22 -0.53 ± 1.30 140
* BON8 (1P) 116.10 ± 2.52 -5.47 ± 2.79 20



Observation 5: As expected, Fakirs win way less games than a "fair" share of 25%, but interestingly, they also lose (slightly) less than 25% of their games. Btw. 43 of the 71 winners got BON1 in round 1.
Desc. VP Margin Count
winner 135.03 ± 1.44 20.13 ± 1.09 71
* seat 1 133.50 ± 4.38 17.19 ± 2.75 8
* seat 2 142.25 ± 2.49 25.71 ± 2.81 12
* seat 3 134.33 ± 2.68 19.00 ± 2.55 21
* seat 4 133.03 ± 2.30 19.48 ± 1.19 30

2nd place 123.02 ± 0.95 5.69 ± 0.62 133
* seat 1 118.47 ± 2.21 3.91 ± 1.47 19
* seat 2 119.65 ± 1.51 6.38 ± 1.48 26
* seat 3 125.28 ± 1.91 6.65 ± 1.25 36
* seat 4 124.79 ± 1.63 5.32 ± 0.98 52

3rd place 113.72 ± 0.94 -5.84 ± 0.57 137
* seat 1 112.41 ± 2.89 -5.86 ± 1.51 27
* seat 2 115.25 ± 1.72 -4.61 ± 1.06 20
* seat 3 111.42 ± 1.88 -6.17 ± 1.31 33
* seat 4 115.14 ± 1.31 -6.06 ± 0.84 57

last 103.12 ± 1.12 -20.90 ± 0.83 113
* seat 1 100.92 ± 2.59 -20.15 ± 2.30 12
* seat 2 103.43 ± 1.71 -20.20 ± 1.38 28
* seat 3 100.25 ± 2.97 -23.54 ± 1.90 28
* seat 4 105.31 ± 1.67 -19.89 ± 1.35 45


Observation 6: One third of Fakirs were picked in games which had TP>>3 scoring in round 1, with slightly more of the Air variant than the Water variant. These were also the only scorings in which Fakirs achieved a positive margin, usually helped by BON1.
Desc. VP Margin Count
R1: TP>>3 120.91 ± 1.36 0.23 ± 1.34 145
* BON1 125.93 ± 1.96 5.29 ± 1.97 58
* BON3 122.83 ± 9.46 9.96 ± 8.03 6
* BON5 116.04 ± 2.47 -3.75 ± 2.64 28
* BON8 121.18 ± 2.98 -1.02 ± 3.16 22
* built TE 122.73 ± 1.48 1.69 ± 1.46 123
* built TE+2D 127.62 ± 2.04 5.16 ± 2.16 50
* built TE+3D 128.00 ± 3.47 5.69 ± 3.19 17



Observation 7: Less than 30% of Fakirs games used VTO (variable turn order). Which shows the lower popularity of Fakirs once it became clear that they require very special settings to be competitive. Fakirs did significantly worse in games with VTO, but so do most factions (cf. this statistic on BGG). Their delta in margin of 3.9 VP is higher than it is for the average base factions (2.8 VP). Nobody knows whether that's because Fakirs are particularly sensitive to VTO or because newer (and therfore VTO) games field more Mermaids, Engineers and Nomads than before.
94% of the non-VTO games were recorded before April 2015, only 19 since. Just 5 VTO games were recorded before April 2015.
Desc. VP Margin Count
no VTO 117.15 ± 0.88 -1.00 ± 0.88 321
VTO 117.11 ± 1.31 -4.93 ± 1.33 133



Observation 8: The Fakirs leech distribution is pretty similar to that of the average faction.
Desc. VP Margin Count
Power leeched by all factions in the tournament setting
0-3 125.29 ± 0.17 4.41 ± 0.17 9483
4-7 128.83 ± 0.14 6.14 ± 0.14 13643
8-11 131.09 ± 0.19 7.17 ± 0.18 7748
12-15 133.15 ± 0.39 8.15 ± 0.36 1938
16+ 131.89 ± 1.17 7.77 ± 1.04 246

Power leeched by Fakirs in the tournament setting
0-3 114.29 ± 1.36 -4.03 ± 1.40 118
4-7 117.34 ± 1.00 -1.86 ± 1.06 218
8-11 120.41 ± 1.81 -0.67 ± 1.75 95
12-15 117.05 ± 3.72 0.36 ± 3.47 19
16+ 113.00 ± 9.60 -9.06 ± 2.70 4



Observation 9: FAV11 (Earth1, D>>2) is by far the most popular favor tile for Fakirs. It isn't nearly as successful though as the two next popular favors FAV8 (Air2, +4pw) and FAV9 (Fire1, +3c). FAV11 is also the most popular amongst those who gained two favors by either building a second temple or upgrading to SA.
Desc. VP Margin Count
1TE
FAV6 (W2) 113.08 ± 5.73 -0.79 ± 3.45 12
1TE
FAV7 (E2) 116.56 ± 3.15 -3.39 ± 2.90 18
1TE
FAV8 (A2) 121.37 ± 1.76 2.03 ± 1.99 59
1TE
FAV9 (F1) 120.30 ± 2.73 1.13 ± 2.85 43
1TE
FAV10 (W1) 118.54 ± 3.55 1.62 ± 5.12 13
1TE
FAV11 (E1) 117.87 ± 1.13 -2.82 ± 1.15 195
1TE
FAV12 (A1) 117.00 ± NaN -10.25 ± NaN 1

2TE
FAV6 (W2) 117.00 ± 17.00 -3.25 ± 1.50 2
2TE
FAV7 (E2) 122.71 ± 5.69 2.00 ± 4.66 7
2TE
FAV8 (A2) 137.33 ± 2.03 12.92 ± 7.42 3
2TE
FAV9 (F1) 109.00 ± 11.59 -0.33 ± 7.07 3
2TE
FAV10 (W1) 113.50 ± 6.50 -14.50 ± 1.75 2
2TE
FAV11 (E1) 121.67 ± 5.04 1.92 ± 3.58 9

SA
FAV7 (E2) 120.80 ± 6.37 2.25 ± 4.18 5
SA
FAV8 (A2) 124.29 ± 5.96 1.96 ± 3.44 7
SA
FAV9 (F1) 122.50 ± 16.50 -0.88 ± 2.12 2
SA
FAV11 (E1) 115.25 ± 7.20 -6.31 ± 4.78 4



Observation 10: Below I collected all scenarios which gave Fakirs a positive margin: TP>>3 scoring in round 1, have either two temples (very small sample size) or one temple plus three dwellings at the end of round 1, take favor FAV8. FAv8 seemingly doesn't mix well with BON1, but certainly with TP>>3/Air.
Desc. VP Margin Count
R1: TP>>3 120.91 ± 1.36 0.23 ± 1.34 145
BON1 (Spade) 121.56 ± 1.02 1.01 ± 1.09 194
2TE 121.31 ± 4.41 1.29 ± 3.32 13
3D0TPTE 123.51 ± 1.71 2.47 ± 1.86 59
FAV8 (A2) 122.36 ± 1.66 2.49 ± 1.77 69

R1: TP>>3,
BON1, TE 127.47 ± 1.99 6.30 ± 2.04 53
R1: not TP>>3
BON1, TE 120.45 ± 1.21 -0.25 ± 1.36 121

TE, FAV8 122.15 ± 1.74 2.55 ± 1.94 62
* BON1 (Spade) 121.13 ± 2.43 -0.32 ± 2.23 24
* BON2 (Cult) 126.63 ± 4.92 9.75 ± 3.82 8
* BON5 (3pw,1W) 130.25 ± 3.20 15.10 ± 4.43 12
* BON8 (1P) 117.73 ± 3.60 -7.82 ± 4.41 11



Conclusion:
Fakirs suck - it's that simple. Even the best opening available to them (3D + TE, not easy to achieve, especially since they start with 2-4 power less than everybody else) yields a worse margin than the average of all factions with all openings.



=================


New opening statistics for base factions:
- Alchemists: Alchemists opening statistics - revisited
- Fakirs: Fakirs opening statistics - revisited
- Mermaids: Mermaids opening statistics - revisited
- Witches: Witches opening statistics - revisited


Older opening statistics for base factions:
- Alchemists: Alchemist opening statistics
- Auren: Auren opening statistics
- Chaos Magicians: Chaos Magicians openings statistics
- Cultists: Cultists opening statistics
- Darklings: Darklings opening statistics
- Dwarves: Dwarves opening statistics
- Engineers: Engineers opening statistics
- Fakirs: Fakirs opening statistics
- Giants: Giants opening statistics
- Halflings: Halflings opening statistics
- Mermaids: Mermaids opening statistics
- Nomads: Nomads opening statistics
- Swarmlings: Swarmling opening statistics
- Witches: Witches opening statistics

Older opening statistics for expansion factions:
- Riverwalkers: Riverwalker opening statistics
- Yetis: Yetis opening statistics
17 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Brian Hawaiian
msg tools
mb
Would Fakir's be too strong if they could upgrade their dig like every other faction?

Why are so many things working against them? (Dig, Power Situation, Terrible Costing SH)
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Robert
Germany
Bocholt
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
The digging limitation seems odd indeed. There must have been some huge wins in the test games for this constraint to happen. Note that this handicap was added when SPADE>>2 was still allowed in rounds 5+6, so maybe it was to prevent a similar tactic as Halflings, just for more points due to carpet rides?

With a late D>>2 round, digging Fakirs could also rake up a lot of points. But so can all the other factions who tend to succeed with advanced digging - and with more range.

Comparing the income from the Fakirs' SH (priest, aka a 3pw power action) to the Chaos Magicians' SH (2w, aka a 4pw power action), the higher price of a whopping 6c seems waaaay to high, even considering that the extended range is probably more valuable than the double action.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Robert
Germany
Bocholt
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Poll: Impact of changes to the Fakirs
Here are some potential changes to the Fakirs. Please make a (hopefully educated ;)) guess how the various combinations would impact their chances to do better.
Please rate each combination of changes. Sorry for this being quite crowded.

The options are
1) SH costs 4w+6c
2) SH costs 4w+8c
3) can advance dig to 1w per spade
4) start with 5/7/0 power
  still worst still bad sub-par, but shines in some setups average good overpowered
1) only
2) only
3) only
4) only
1) + 3)
2) + 3)
1) + 4)
2) + 4)
3) + 4)
1) + 3) + 4)
2) + 3) + 4)
      50 answers
Poll created by DocCool
3 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Gambia
Brest
msg tools
Avatar
DocCool wrote:
<poll>


I don't see the option about bon4 and bon10 =P
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Gambia
Brest
msg tools
Avatar
DocCool wrote:
The digging limitation seems odd indeed.


This is probably due to the fact that Fakirs with 2-range carpet flight and maxed out dig can counter-dig almost any hex on board, and/or cheap digging would be a too easy way to convert spare priests in the last round.

Of course today it doesn't seem an issue at all to allow the second dig advance, but during playtesting phase it's highly possible that the first version of Fakirs looked too strong (as Juho pointed out in a very old thread).
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Steinar Nerhus
Norway
flag msg tools
mb
I think the biggest effect would be reducing the cost of the SH, then allowing advance on dig, then extra power at start, but I am not sure.

Being able to build SH from about round 3-4 without losing all your coins would be nice, as it can set up lots of flights in the later rounds, and help you get a town for even more reach if you want it.

Depending on which other colors are in the game you might not even need to upgrade the spade.

I might underestimate the value of early power, being able to get a sweet power-action early might be more important than the dig, but probably not more than the SH? Unless they get to 3/9/0?
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Steinar Nerhus
Norway
flag msg tools
mb
Skyswooper wrote:
DocCool wrote:
<poll>


I don't see the option about bon4 and bon10 =P


It annoys me every time I want to pick Dwarves (or Fakirs) that these dont help me at all
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Robert
Germany
Bocholt
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Stones wrote:
Skyswooper wrote:
DocCool wrote:
<poll>


I don't see the option about bon4 and bon10 =P


It annoys me every time I want to pick Dwarves (or Fakirs) that these dont help me at all
I'd easily agree that BON10 could count for Fakirs and Dwarves too (though with a highly enlightened Fakirs, that's 9-12VPs). I'm not so sure about the extra range from BON4 though. Especially not for the Dwarves.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Gambia
Brest
msg tools
Avatar
DocCool wrote:
Stones wrote:
Skyswooper wrote:
DocCool wrote:
<poll>


I don't see the option about bon4 and bon10 =P


It annoys me every time I want to pick Dwarves (or Fakirs) that these dont help me at all
I'd easily agree that BON10 could count for Fakirs and Dwarves too (though with a highly enlightened Fakirs, that's 9-12VPs). I'm not so sure about the extra range from BON4 though. Especially not for the Dwarves.


Look at the maps. The extra jump doesn't help them much. Also they cannot connect it afterward just by upgrading range like Fakirs can.

On the other hand bon4 does help Fakirs well and they don't have enough priests early on to abuse it so it's balanced.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Robert
Germany
Bocholt
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
What's up, people? Only 15 voters so far in the poll above?

Don't tell me you don't have an opinion about buffing Fakirs!
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Rafael Ramus
msg tools
designer
Deus Vult
badge
Gloria in excelsis Deo
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
DocCool wrote:
What's up, people? Only 15 voters so far in the poll above?

Don't tell me you don't have an opinion about buffing Fakirs!


It's harder to form an opinion when you haven't played it enough, and let's face it, most games nobody picks Fakirs.

P.S.: I've given my 2 cents, I really hope more people can chime in.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Loon
United States
flag msg tools
mb
I don't claim to be an expert, but I've had a few good Fakirs games. I voted a bit below the average results, mostly because only 4) seems generally helpful.

The nice thing about 4) is giving them the opportunity for ACT2 if they don't rush for FAV11, and opening the door for a round 1 carpet flight combined with BON1. That may seem specific, but it's all likely to happen together from 4th seat. With some leech, it also gives them a credible chance at ACT5 or ACT6, which they desperately need.

Unfortunately, the other buffs are at best situational. Even at 4+6, the SH is substantially more that a TE. Unless you're getting round or bonus tile VP for it, I'd still much rather have the cheaper option that comes with a favor, and simply take TW7 later. (The SH is better on the Lakes though; I've seen 3-range flying effective a couple times!)

To combine digging upgrades with flights, the Fakirs would need to spend 2p (among other resources) that could otherwise have been carpets. I don't think I've ever had 3 extra priests with fakirs (two for upgrades and one to fly/dig with) and if I did, I'm sure I could make use of them on the cult tracks.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Robert
Germany
Bocholt
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Personally, I'm flabberghasted that some people consider the capability to fully upgrade terraforming as sufficient to make Fakirs an average faction.
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Sam
msg tools
mbmbmb
Fix should be a 4w 4c SH and 5/7 digging. Alternatively, make the SH generate 2p income.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Loon
United States
flag msg tools
mb
Oh I like the 2p income! How early do you think you could build that? Round 1 seems too early still, but it would certainly be tempting by 2 or 3 if I didn't rush fav11
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Per Olander
Denmark
flag msg tools
mbmb
jsnmthw wrote:
Oh I like the 2p income! How early do you think you could build that? Round 1 seems too early still, but it would certainly be tempting by 2 or 3 if I didn't rush fav11


2p income AND 4c cost would be borderline broken...

Personally, I don't think they would need more than lowering the SH cost to 8c, plus starting power shifted to 5/7/0

people tend to forget that the game needs to work with all constellations from 2 to 5 players, extra final scoring, all boards etc... and its better to have a niche faction, than an OP faction in for instance 2p games.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Robert
Germany
Bocholt
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Per Olander wrote:
2p income AND 4c cost would be borderline broken...
Did you note the word "Alternatively"?
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Gambia
Brest
msg tools
Avatar
Lowering SH cost and allowing second dig won't see an impact in the majority of games. So combining 3 options will probably average to nearly the same result as with only the option 5/7/0. However with respect to the poll it looks like almost no one agrees with me on this point.

A 2p income SH with reduced cost might be a good fix, but why not just go for the fix on bon4 and bon10 instead ?
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Sam
msg tools
mbmbmb
I'm going to give a more detailed argument concerning my above statement. If you're going to use an improved stronghold to fix the Fakirs, it must be substantially improved. The problem is that it is essentially useless as is. A small improvement such as decreasing the cost to 8c or 6c will only make it marginally less useless. Fortunately, we have a couple very easy comparisons to asses how strong it needs to be.

TW7 was clearly intended in part to fix the Fakirs, and although it failed, it gives us a good point of comparison. So, if an improved SH is going to fix them, it has to at least be as strong as the te+tw7 option. Fakirs need the increased range and the priest income. So they have two options: build a te and tw7 or a SH and some other town.

For point of comparison, tw2 makes the analysis of the relative strengths of these two options simpler. In net sum, this comparison yields a favor and 5c vs. 3vp. The only thing not accounted for in this equivalence is the extra power value of the SH.

A favor+5c massively outweighs 3vp. Reducing the cost of the SH to 4w4c puts us at a favor vs. 1c+3vp. I don't think those are equivalent except in certain, very niche situations in rd 5 or 6. The double priest options gives us the additional 1p income per round, which just about balances the favor from the te, but this leaves us at 5c vs. 3vp, which still gives the advantage to te+tw7.

Fixing the Fakirs with an improved SH requires something of the nature of 2p income with a reduced cost.

I don't think bon4 and bon10 can fix the fakirs. They aren't strong without those bonuses in play, and the marginal value that they would give the fakirs isn't going to fix them. Although, generally, it's always annoyed me that those two bonuses were useless to the fakirs and dwarves.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Per Olander
Denmark
flag msg tools
mbmb
DocCool wrote:
Per Olander wrote:
2p income AND 4c cost would be borderline broken...
Did you note the word "Alternatively"?


no!
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Flo P
Austria
flag msg tools
mb
DocCool wrote:
What's up, people? Only 15 voters so far in the poll above?

Don't tell me you don't have an opinion about buffing Fakirs!


Probably because the poll is hidden in this post, I found it only because you referenced it in a different thread. Btw I very much appreciate your work doing all the data analysis and interpretation!
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Hendrik Möller
Germany
flag msg tools
Does this poll mean there will be rule changes for the fakirs? In this case I think an announcement in the forum and on the snellman-site would be good.

Personally I think the 3 mentioned changes (standard 0/7/5 power, standard dig, standard SH-cost 4w 6c) would be enough to make them do okay. Not great, but average and thus fully playable in most setups. 4w 4c would probably still not be op, 4w 6c and 2p income would be good.

The SH is the most annoying part, especially on the standard map where you need range 2 for most of the flights. Although I "survided" with range 1 in this recently finished tournament game https://terra.snellman.net/faction/4pLeague_S19_D2L2_G3/faki..., it was just an emergency solution and nothing you really want.

So I think the standard map is part of the problem for the fakirs, both F&I maps are (much) better.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Robert
Germany
Bocholt
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Bellosaurus wrote:
Does this poll mean there will be rule changes for the fakirs? In this case I think an announcement in the forum and on the snellman-site would be good.
No, this is just a private poll by a private person. The designers "solved" the general imbalance issue by offering a variant which gives each faction different start VPs, e.g. giving Fakirs between 6 VPS and 18 VPs more at start than other factions. I presume for them this official variant closed the case.

Like many others, I would rather make Fakirs winnable by enhancing their possibilities to make VPs, than by just giving them a head start in VPs and hope that they haven't used it all up by the end of the game. The poll is meant to give some indication of what might be a fair improvement of the Fakirs' abilities.

Caveat: we don't know how much TM expertise the 41 voters in the poll actually have - are they gurus or monkeys randomly clicking answers? This can be seen by the wildly differing answers in the not-so-obvious cases.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Len Sti
msg tools
For me it has always felt odd that they do not start with a priest, while the darklings (the other faction with an ability involving priests) do. Not only would fakirs be able to reliably use carpet flight in the first round, it would overall increase their flexibility. So I would love if a buff included giving them a starting priest. Or is there a specific reason that they do not have a priest that I have missed?
4 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
1 , 2  Next »   | 
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.