When I look at the submitted games, maybe it's time to introduce som basic validations:

Examples:

You cannot pick "Defeat by devastation" when you do not play with the "Cities in Ruin" expansion

You cannot pick "Defeat by prelude" when the prelude is not "Twin Blasphemies of the Black Goat"

You cannot defeat the Shub-Niggurath Epic Monster when not playing against Shub-Niggurath (duh... :D)

and so on..

@Tibs in case you are interested I can go over all components and provide you with a full list of Validations

Wow, I don't know, maybe!

So far as I know, I can't get Spreadsheets to automatically cull entries.

With Arkham Horror, I knew the games well enough to know what was an illegal entry so that I could manually delete it. All I know this time is that you can't win by final mystery against Azathoth.

Here you go @Tibs

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1dlHj2Jfw-zW_g2hgnN-QkznzjfbbbZhTlLQmh3p1HeQ/edit?usp=sharing

List is quite massive. Feel free to use all, some or none of them

Maybe this has been mentioned already. If so sorry for the repost.

It occurred to me that using these statistics, it is now possible to define the hardest of hardest Eldritch Horror challenges. Here we go:

- Eldritch Horror base game

- Forsaken Lore expansion (57.17% loss)

- Signs of Carcosa expansion (57.14% loss)

- Cities in Ruins expansion (insufficient data, but anecdotes indicate it's hard)

- Under the Pyramids expansion (for preludes and conditions)

- Ghost from the Past prelude (61.43% loss)

- Cthulhu ancient one (59% loss)

- Five investigators

- Tony Morgan (49% win)

- Akachi Onyele (49% win)

- Leo Anderson (48% win)

- Silas Marsh (47% win)

- Mark Harrigan (45% win)

- Old reference cards

- Only hard mythos cards

Perhaps! Though if I were to do this, I'd also use a "starting rumor" and the new reference cards since as I understand it, they're supposed to be a better-balanced replacement and not a variant simply for the sake of shaking things up.

22 hours ago, Tibs said:

Perhaps! Though if I were to do this, I'd also use a "starting rumor" and the new reference cards since as I understand it, they're supposed to be a better-balanced replacement and not a variant simply for the sake of shaking things up.

Ah yes, a starting rumor could definitely make things worse.

The way FFG formulated it in their eratta is that the revised reference cards are an alternative, complete with symbols for 'easier' and 'harder'. Regardless though, five-player old reference cards seems to be the hardest mode, which is why I picked it.

Of course it is hard to believe that the win and loss percentages for different game elements are stochastically independent of each other. For example, four out of the five 'worst' investigators are from the base game. This may be because they are simply bad, but may also be because the base game is over represented among new players that have a higher chance of losing because of lack of skill, or because people that only own the base game face Cthulhu more often and thus get lower win percentages with the characters they use. However, it's probably impossible to adjust for all these possible stochastic dependencies. Moreover, you might even attempt to craft the worst possible team for a specific ancient one, or a particularly unfriendly prelude for a specific setup, but this would be up for discussion. Looking at the statistics alone, there is a unique combination of 'worst' game elements.

Actually, to make matters worse, if people decide to start attempting this 'hardest mode' it will become a self-fulfilling prophecy as their games will contribute to even higher loss percentages for all elements used. The challenge still stands though.

You're absolutely right. I was going to mention how the difficulties and effectiveness scores are all hopelessly correlated, but when you use the word "stochastic," I know that you know already.

I'm not so sure about the self-fulfilling prophecy, though. Perhaps the only players crazy enough to try this combo are the really experienced ones, so they'll bias the results towards victory. I've seen this on the Arkham Horror stats sheet: three Ancient Ones got official revisions, and in two of these cases the AO functions exactly the same except with an added penalty or other ability. However, the stats sheet showed that the objectively harder AO had a lower failure percentage for a time, probably because more dedicated players went up against it.

1 hour ago, Tibs said:

I'm not so sure about the self-fulfilling prophecy, though. Perhaps the only player crazy enough to try this combo are the really experienced ones, so they'll bias the results towards victory. I've seen this on the Arkham Horror stats sheet: three Ancient Ones got official revisions, and in two of these cases the AO functions exactly the same except with an added penalty or other ability. However, the stats sheet showed that the objectively harder AO had a lower win percentage for a time, probably because more dedicated players went up against it.

Haha you have a point there. I guess we'll have to wait and see if there are people out there with enough skills to beat the odds of an average player, even when faced with these extreme conditions.

On 10/11/2017 at 4:54 AM, pyroclasm said:

This may be because they are simply bad, but may also be because the base game is over represented among new players that have a higher chance of losing because of lack of skill, or because people that only own the base game face Cthulhu more often and thus get lower win percentages with the characters they use.

On the other hand, there might also be self-selection bias in the reporting, ie. only the 'afficionados' of the game would go bother post their game results. I doubt 'beginners' would go to this extent for their first few games. So, is a 'new player' defined by the number of games he has played (or reported here) or the number of expansions (or lack thereof, ie base game only) he owns?

Is it possible to run an analysis only for, say, the top 100 submitters of the game (20+ or so reports) and see if this produces different results?

On a different note, I would like to request that for the "Most Effective Investigators win%" have also effectiveness rating based on team size, ie, for 1-investigator, 2, 3, 4, and 5+. I'm really curious who would be the 2-team most effective investigators, as this would be a guide for me in choosing who for my 2-inv games. Thanks a lot of considering this.

Judging by the previews I saw, we're going to be needing a substantial rework of the Form and Statistics Spreadsheet, most notably a Camapign checkbox and having the option to have multiple preludes.

Just had a great game with masks of Nyarlohotep. Sefina nailed the big boss final mystery of Antediluvium on the final turn. Probably closest game I ever had. First game with Sefina. Only investigator to make it all the way through; top tier. <3

We getting an update for statistic subs post Masks?

Yo @Tibs . New stuff

Expansion Name

• Masks of Nyarlathotep

Investigators

• Agatha Crane
• Calvin Wright
• Carson Sinclair
• Daniela Reyes
• Father Mateo
• Preston Fairmont
• Sefina Rousseau

Preludes

• Aid of the Elder Gods
• Army of Darkness
• Father of Serpents
• Harbinger of the Outer Gods
• In the Lightless Chamber
• Temptation
• The Archives
• The Stars Align
• Unto the Breach
• Wondrous Curios

Rumors

• Spreading Corruption

Epic Monsters

• Bloated Woman
• God of the Bloody Tongue

Ancient Ones

• Antediluvium
• Nyarlathotep

Wow, thanks again @Runko . What would I do without you?

Also... Calvin Wright?? There's a name I didn't think I would see again.

On 2/28/2018 at 6:21 AM, Tibs said:

Wow, thanks again @Runko . What would I do without you?

Also... Calvin Wright?? There's a name I didn't think I would see again.

Will you be making the changes to the form to record and accomodate Campaign play?

I'm not sure I'd know how. I need to know more about what campaign play is and how it affects ordinary gameplay.

To me, the major purpose of these stats reports is to figure out which AO is the hardest. Once you start playing multiple games that all interrelate, that muddies things slightly. But I'm not opposed to the idea.

21 hours ago, Tibs said:

I'm not sure I'd know how. I need to know more about what campaign play is and how it affects ordinary gameplay.

To me, the major purpose of these stats reports is to figure out which AO is the hardest. Once you start playing multiple games that all interrelate, that muddies things slightly. But I'm not opposed to the idea.

A campaign game is not much different from a normal game. Here are the most notable differences:

• The game is played with 2 specific preludes in play, details in the rulebook (most notable change)
• Dark Pacts and Promise of Powers carry over to the subsequent games (no effect on the Statistics, unless you include Condition tracking)
• Completed Personal Stories from previous game start in play (no effect on the Statistics, unless you include Personal Story tracking)
• Devastated Cities from previous games remain devastated. (no effect on the Statistics, unless you include Devastated Space tracking)

Full Rules, page 7: https://images-cdn.fantasyflightgames.com/filer_public/43/47/4347db33-4b2d-45a7-bdee-7eb0b6230e4d/eh09_rulebook.pdf

Seems they couldn't keep the name of "Personal Missions" consistent in the rules.

These Personal Story/Mission cards seem like they're conceptually identical to those in Arkham Horror. In AH I simply left a checkbox for whether everyone completed or failed theirs. Unless a Mission does something particularly radical, I don't think this is worth tracking.

But I will open up the Stats to allow you to check multiple preludes. I'll have to think about how to present prelude stats though.

Hmm I submitted a game but somehow missed a mistake. It's at the bottom of submissions (Rush's Game 1) and we won by slumber mysteries, NOT lost by devastation. Any way to fix it?

Hi there,

apologies but I filed our game last night but realised afterwards I made a big mistake, instead of putting our score as +13 (the very skin of our teeth victory) I put down -13.

Would it be possible to correct this? Its line 12669 against Shudde M'ell and entered by WisdomLS.

Thanks 🙂

Hi RushSecond and WisdomLS. Both your games have now been corrected.