Avatar
User
NB Posts : 94
Created :
Last visit :
Posted
Because it's a monte carlo simulator, I can never say with 100% certainty that something is possible or impossible. I can only say if it happened or not in this random set of data. Technically speaking, I don't know if it could happen or not.

Figuring out the best and worst possible result from a given size draw for a given deck doesn't seem like a hard problem to do separately, but, right now it isn't one that I'm doing. Until I do that, 100% won't mean it can't fail, just that it went ~100,000 shuffles without failing.

You occasionally see a 0% or 100% that's a slightly off-shade, that's actually a 0.000001-0.5% or a 99.5-99.99999%. The color spectrum doesn't have any rounding.

I think you're right though, that if there's even 1 pass it should round up to 1% and if there's even one fail it should round down to 99%. That'd also get rid of those off-color 0s and 100s.
Posted - Edited
Nothing ever gets done quite as fast as I want it to but here's some progress.

Github as promised, late as usual: https://github.com/brisingre/TheSeventhCalculator



Rederived the goat table by monte carlo estimation. These numbers are for a 2-player 1-curse run, with no advanced skills in the deck.

Not sure if the slight differences between this table and the one in the rulebook are

- the randomness of the monte carlo estimation (there's always some degree of error, and for values sufficiently close to 0.5 it can make the difference in which way they round. Running more simulations reduces but does not eliminate this error, at the cost of calculations taking longer.)

- stylistic choices in the table in the rulebook (they round everything down to 99% to show that you can technically fail almost anything. I just do whatever C#'s default rounding behavior is)

-small errors in the table in the rulebook (I know nothing about how it was derived and rounded, so I just have to trust their math)

- slight differences in the number of players used to calculate (the rulebook says it doesn't make a difference but it makes at least a small one I think)

- some tiny pernicious bug in my star counting code that makes it sometimes off by 1% or so.



This is the difference one :icon_succes_7: makes. This is what activating Mary's skill ability at the start of the game, without advanced skills, gives you. 10% on small checks, less on big ones.



This is the impact of Lovecraft's curse ability. It's a little worse than mary's in terms of raw odd when you need lots of successes from few cards and a little better when you need only a few successes from a lot of cards, which sort of makes sense-- hers makes cards that already have stars better, so you're more likely to get a few in a small space. His makes the worst cards better, so it's doing the most work when all you're worrying about is drawing a bunch of curses. It kinda makes sense.

Of course, draw odds doesn't accurately depict the power gulf between those two abilities, because you use Mary's before you draw and Lovecraft's after you see if it's going to work...
Posted
Of course!

I'll put the code on github tonight and post the exe here and on bgg once it's a little more usable. There's a lot I still want to do...
Posted
I've begun work on an odds calculator program for The Seventh Continent.

A WIP of the distribution screen:

Posted
I know you say brute force seems like cheating, but I think this problem is a perfect candidate for monte carlo estimation.

The actual probability calculations to solve this problem are way beyond me, but I could whip up a program to simulate a deck of 7C cards and draw a thousand sample results a second in just a few hours. Perhaps I will attempt that today.

For the general use of anyone trying this kind of problem, some very useful information:


Distribution of basic actions:

:icon_succes: x7

:icon_succes::icon_succes: x2

:icon_succes::icon_succes::icon_succes: x1

:icon_success-right::icon_succes: x8

:icon_succes::icon_success-left: x5

:icon_success-right: x4

:icon_success-left: x4

:7::icon_succes::icon_success-left: x1

:icon_success-right::7: x1

:7::icon_success-left: x2

:icon_curse: x4 (plus named curses, which there should always be at least one of.)




Distribution of a character kit (this is the same for all characters, so you can multiply this by the party size):

:icon_success-right::icon_success-left: x1

:icon_success-right::icon_succes: x1

:icon_succes::icon_success-left: x1

:icon_success-left: x1

:icon_success-right::7: x1





Distribution of advanced skills in the base game:

:icon_succes::icon_succes: x1

:7::7: x1

:7::icon_succes: x10

:icon_success-right::7::icon_succes::icon_success-left: x2

:icon_success-right::7::icon_succes: x4

:7::icon_succes::icon_success-left: x1

:icon_success-right::7::icon_success-left: x6

:icon_success-right::7: x7

:7::icon_success-left: x8
Posted
colin wrote:
hmm... in my opinion it´s useless for the active player in your example. further, the bamboo armour is a character specific ability, one out of five. it´s generally not allowed, that you use specific abilities from other characters. f.e. the
frankenstein-card from dr. frankenstein where he summons his monster
is especially for
dr. frankenstein
only.

i dont have the 100% accurate answer or what the developers have thought, but I think several arguments strengthen the interpretation, that the bamboo armour only protects dimitri.


The only restriction on character-specific cards is that only that character can have them in their hand. This implies some other restrictions -- only you can use cards in your hand, so you're always the active player on your white-box actions. Consequences of actions that don't specify who the target target the active player, so if, say, a state-dropper doesn't say "one involved character" or something it only works on you. But brown-box effects work for any action you're involved in, even if you're not active, and critically, as arnaud points out, items can be built to any involved character, and traded between characters. There is no restriction on having another player's character cards in your inventory, only your hand.

Anyway, there's an advanced skill, Shield, that does pretty much the same thing. It's not just bamboo armor that does this. So we can forget about answers that depend on the fact that bamboo armor is a Dmitri card, I think.

In general, if something doesn't say who it affects, the default is to affect the active player. A case could be made by that logic that armor and shield affect the active player, regardless of who uses them.

There is not a similar default for cards affecting the person who controls or plays the card as far as I know. It sort of feels like there is, because only you can initiate actions on cards in your hand or inventory, which makes you the active player, which means that default targeting of the active player targets you on your own cards, but I don't think it goes any farther than that in the rules as written.

Cards can explicitly target the player whose hand or inventory they're in by using the words "you" and "your." This seems to be the normal way of making cards target their owner outside of actions, for passive abilities like the ones that kill companions if you get the wrong state. Between this and being the active player, we are very very used to effects from our hands and inventory self-targetting. But it isn't just an automatic thing that happens.

But this is all assuming Prevent has to target a character, and I don't think there's a single instance where Prevent has an explicit target like that. There's only one other Prevent that I know of, the Lucky advanced skill, also just says prevent without a target. I've assumed it self-targets in the past (when glancing at it before throwing it back in the advanced skill deck) because blue cards usually self-target, but under a technical reading, if it targets at all, it must target the active player. But I don't think Prevent does target a player. I think Prevent is it's own thing.









The actual question is what the fuck is Prevent.

I don't think there's any mention of Prevent effects in the rulebook at all. We don't know how it works. There's a variety of ways you could think about it.

-Preventing states happens as soon as you choose to activate the ability on the item. If one or more states are being prevented, the action can't give anyone those states, no matter what. They just don't happen.

-Prevent effects wait until a state of the right name happens, and then they prevent it. They prevent exactly one state card, on anybody, whoever takes one first.

-Prevent is like any other thing that targets a character. It could say "prevent all involved characters from getting injured" or "prevent any one involved character from getting injured." In the absence of a specific target, it will target the active player.

-Bamboo armor is a suit of armor. It protects the guy wearing it, not everybody else who happens to have fallen off the same cliff as him. So unless something says otherwise, prevent always means "prevent yourself". Unlike most other things, if you wanted to prevent the active player taking a state, you have to say "prevent the active player", which never actually happens. Prevent is only on blue cards, blue cards usually self-target, so Prevent self-targetting kind of makes sense even if it isn't in the rules anywhere. Maybe they just forgot it.

-You can easily imagine compound variations of these. Maybe it shields you, maybe it shields the active player, maybe it shields everybody. Maybe it only blocks the first state card, maybe it works for the whole action.







Maybe there actually are rules for Prevent i missed, too. If anybody has a rulebook reference for it let me know please.
Posted
colin wrote:
hi, maybe it helps if you concentrate of the wording seen on the card which causes the state.
sometimes it is said:"the active player gets injured", or "all involved characters get injured". I have to assume, that your problem with the armor occurs only when you take an action where 2 or more characters are involved.
so, I would go after the wording first, as mentioned, and if it is stated "all involved characters get injured", I would only avoid the state for the owner of the armour - dimitri.
to me it doesn´t make any sense, that alle characters are protected.


Curious --

What about if it said "the active player gets injured" and the person with the armor isn't the active player? Is the armor just useless in that circumstance, or can it always protect one person?
Posted
All involved players, I think. Not 100% sure though, good question.
Posted
Yay! A goat.

IthilAlqua wrote:
If SP wants to reward us for waiting, they could upload the rule-book for WGUMCD to the site, so we can read it and agonize about not playing ;-)


That's a good idea...
Posted
Depends on how you think about it I guess.

From a certain point of view, walking and hunting and walking and hunting is all you ever do. Curses give you a series of little objectives where you have to collect stuff from one corner of the map and bring it to another corner, or you have to save up for a difficult action, but they're all relatively small variations on "wander the island and try to survive." They encourage you to wander to different places, some give your wanderings more direction, others less so, but they don't really change anything fundamental about the island or what you do there. They share some points of interest, too, and the base game island isn't gigantic -- you'll visit a lot of the same places on your next three curses that you visited on your first one, either as part of an objective or just on your way from one objective to the next.

Each curse only has about 20-30 cards dedicated to it alone. The other 900 or so are shared between all 4. 99% of the interesting stuff happening all the time isn't because of Goddess, it's just part of the island. It takes most people like a curse and a half or two curses to fully explore the island, at which point the game becomes more about optimization. Once you know where everything is, all four of the base game curses are pretty simple/easy, and the most fun way to play is with all 4 of them.

Expansion curses are different. A lot of those take you to whole new areas that are otherwise inaccessible.

Some of the curses are more interesting than others, though.

Offering to the Guardians
Offering gives you almost no objectives it all. You can think of it as a free-form exploration run with no real objective except to survive indefinitely. Some people think it's lame, your mileage may vary. More specifically:
You have to amass piles of XP and visit the statues to dump it into your curse. You can get XP from just about anywhere and there's statues all over the map, so you can pretty much go wherever and do whatever, but if you want to make it into a little more of an objective, you can try to find a good fast way to grind XP. There's actually quite a few interesting strategies for this curse.


Dark Chest of the Damned
Dark Chest is sort of like a longer, harder, much meaner-spirited Goddess. You've got riddles to solve, places to visit, items to carry to the places they belong. Unlike Goddess, there are hard locked actions to attempt any stage of the quest. There's also no map and the riddles are much less helpful -- you need to know where you're going.


Bloody Hunt
Bloody Hunt is exactly what it sounds like. You just run around trying to kill all the monsters. The fights are harder than normal, and many of the monsters that count for Hunt are in very out-of-the-way, difficult-to-reach, dangerous, or secret locations, or they have to be trapped or stalked in some way to initiate the fight. There's monsters all over so you can pretty much plan your route however you like, you'll visit pretty much the whole island by the end.
Posted
Its easy enough to make a curse card that won't stand out by printing it on regular thin paper and putting it in a sleeve with one of the curses you aren't playing.... Of course, that isn't the only hard thing about including a curse, you'd also have to come up with art for it.
Posted
It is indeed a new version!

So far I'm seeing terrain icons (sans seagulls as mentioned) and banner icons as new stuff. Also some changes to the readme, which has a more complete font list now (perhaps a little too complete, Plantagenet's on it twice.)

Anybody noticed any other changes?
Posted
I can verify every one of those issues I believe. Messages are indeed quite broken.
Posted
Two of us here in Reno NV USA
Posted - Edited
I can say with some confidence that there's no other Monsters in the black box. Somewhat disappointing IMO, I might add one in my own fan stuff.
Posted
I could make you a nicer golden hand icon if you like. I understood what the intent of it is.

Another option would be a green hand with text saying it doesn't count against your green card limit.

You could clean up Frankenstein's quest a little bit more with some numbers trickery.

You get rid of the gold 782 entirely. In it's place, you can add a gold 399, a second version of Frankenstein's monster that has the "carry an item" ability. You either remove the ability to get rid of the second monster or make it even harder.

Then, 782 can just say:

"If the banished pile contains a card with the keyword monster, shuffle a banished card with the title "Forbidden Experiment" into the action deck and banish this."

and his 780 can just say:

"If you have a card with the keyword monster, banish this and take a 782."
Posted
Excellent news indeed!


One more for the list of "Things that are only available as part of the background that would be good to have separate because they go on top of the art"
Posted
I like the idea.

No more places with carnivorous plants like 191, at least not in the base game, but there are a couple of other cards with dangerous or unusual plants. There are even a couple that I could argue are carnivorous. But they're not like the plants on 191, those are only on that card as far as I'm aware.
Posted
Another icon that would be nice to get from WGUMCD:

The black hand used for "destiny cards" (the player roles in the traitor mode.)
Posted - Edited
I agree this card is worded in a confusing way, but I don't think it actually needs errata, strictly speaking.

You apply the first sentence when you first read the card. It's like any other rules text on the numbered side of a green card -- you do it as soon as you take the card. This doesn't need to specify a timing to work, because it uses the default timing. I agree it might be clearer if it did specify a timing, but it doesn't actually need one.

"back into the Action Deck" is a confusing choice of words, because it sort of implies that the card was coming from the Action Deck at the time this ability applies, but I don't think that's nearly enough to specify a timing. If I were to change the wording of this card, the most important change would be to remove "back" from this sentence.

"When this gets revealed..." is a separate ability that specifies its timing. If you were meant to shuffle the 180 card back into the action deck when it is revealed from the action deck, you would shuffle it back into the deck as part of this ability. But it is not -- in fact, it is very specifically split off into a separate ability.

So, I'm pretty sure you're playing it wrong, if you're shuffling it back into the action deck every time you reveal it. I'm pretty sure you only do the first ability when you take the card from the deck, just based on how the timings work -- to say nothing of the balance implications. Which, you're right, totally gamebreaking under that interpretation.