Author Topic: Palace Perils (Case Study)  (Read 268 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Fluffhead

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 17
    • View Profile
Palace Perils (Case Study)
« on: August 08, 2017, 03:40:28 AM »
The default peril symbols for each palace peril include a wyld, rot and two other symbols.  So whether you are corrupt or not, there is 1 explosion symbol and 3 non-explosion symbols.

We're going to look at your probabilities of passing the peril with different burns available.  To make this simple, we'll assume you go into the peril with 7 dice (a reasonable number when trying to breach the palace) and that the peril has not increased or decreased in difficulty due to spell/trickery cards.

Although it doesn't matter mathematically, we will also assume the peril is The Unseen Death and that you are not corrupt (for the purpose of illustration):


The symbols are wyld / sun / moon / rot for this peril.  Given that you have burned the symbols in yellow in the diagram below, your probabilities are shown to the right:


So here's the interesting thing: burning the explosion (wyld here) helps you more than burning two non-explosion symbols!  Burning all of the non-explosion symbols is actually slightly less helpful than burning 1 explosion and 1 non-explosion (here they look equivalent but this is the result of rounding).

Why is burning the explosion so much more impactful?  Because you aren't losing a roll.  Your dice count drops by one with the other burns and this partially offsets the advantage of having to match less symbols.  For instance the top right scenario changes having to "match 3 non-explosions with 7 dice and get at least 1 explosion" to having to "match 2 non-explosions with 6 dice and get at least 1 explosion".


Another thing to note is that there is an advantage to being corrupt.  I believe cursed lands (very common) always adds a rot symbol to a peril.  So if people are playing this on palace perils (or any other peril) and you are corrupt you have an advantage over non-corrupt players if you can burn rots on them.  It's like having extra dice.  With spells that change all of your cards to rot symbols and very common rot burns available in the deck (cursed lands is again a great example) this might not be too hard to achieve.

So what's the conclusion?  If you want to defeat the palace peril, it'd be a smart idea to have cards available to burn the explosion symbol(s).

Darcy Smith

  • League of Geeks | Developer
  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 878
    • View Profile
Re: Palace Perils (Case Study)
« Reply #1 on: August 08, 2017, 11:27:51 AM »
As always, thoroughly interesting stuff Fluffhead! Absolutely love it.

Cheers,

<3 Darcy

Fluffhead

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 17
    • View Profile
Re: Palace Perils (Case Study)
« Reply #2 on: August 09, 2017, 04:14:28 AM »
Glad you find these posts interesting Darcy.

Another thing that struck me when doing these calculations was that one non-explosion burn only increased your chance of defeating the peril by 2%.  This is approximately true with 6 or 8 dice too so it's a reliable figure.  Each successive non-explosion burn is more valuable than the last, but the first has a very minor impact.

So when you see someone roll for it and they defeat the peril are they really getting that lucky?  With one burn it would have nearly been the same likelihood.  My advice is not to burn any card to a palace peril that could be instrumental in defeating the king unless it lets you burn all or all but one of the symbols.