My games (I've uploaded a few, but less than twenty so far I think) are probably gonna bias things toward Legacy somewhat (and the Adept), since my partner plays him in more or less every game we play, lol.
that’s the beauty here the ameena. With over 500 games were finally getting to a point where one persons style is not going to overly influence. Even matchstick only has 40 games, something like percentage
and yeah the overall difficulty of villains is overall, all games. But you can see how many advance games and wins they have on the details page to draw you’re own conclusions. Baron blade is probably due to new players… or do we just totally underestimate the ol doctor?
I don't really play Blade unless I'm with new players, FWIW.
Brilliant Work! Added to the Original Post. This is amazing guys, keep the posts coming.
We are really getting to where the number of games is very statistically significant
True enough for alot of us. We pick up blade everyonce and a while, just for fun. Note, he's also only been played on adnvaced once per our statistics. Interesting.
And for everyone - Individual detail hero data is now in the sheet.
if you do some self cacluating, its interesting to see - Unity may have the best Incap side - in roughly 23% of the games she was incapped, they still won - which is about a percent higher than the next closest, Visionary (22%)
I find it interesting that Wraith is at the bottom of the pack, in that ~60% group.
Wanna know how awesome Absolute Zero is? He has taken on Ambuscade 1 time and pulled 8 victories. That's what I call pure talent.
Just saying: I've never lost to the chairman on advanced…but today I lost to baron blade on normal.
It is quite strange, yes… Bunker is also down here. It would be interesting to know more about these games. Maybe I should take a look at each game they were in, and see if there is something interesting there…
I am not surprised by Baron Blade : he is easy to defeat - most of the time. But when he wins, he wins big, and fast.
Maybe we should add a "subjective player experience level" to the datas : do you consider yourself/your team [a beginner / somewhat experienced / experienced ]?
I will begin reentering my games. Freedom Five, Forward !
oops. Forgot the 0. XD 10/8 is his record 
I too find it interesting that heroes we consider so very powerful (wraith, abzero, haka) are all in the 60s. Which to me actually says they are 'Working as Intended' because a 60% win rate seems like a very valid win rate scenario. I want you to win just over half of your games, close to 2/3rds. With the overall win rate being 65% over all games, you can see that its bumped up by heroes like Tempest and Legacy, but the fact that 9 heroes vrs 7 heroes (ignoring for the moment promo's, playtesting with less than 15 games or so) are under 70%, its kind of cool to see.
What I wonder is now, how does Christopher, Adam, and Paul see these stats? Is this what they intended? Are the heroes lining up with their internal perceptions of how the game should be coming out? Are they thinking that perhaps Akashbutah should be more difficult than a 12% loss rate?
One thing youll probably notice about Baron Blade this time around, he's fallen into the mid 30% for a loss rate against - meaning that most likely, while being more dangerous than any of us take us for as experienced players, he is actually one of he well balanced villains, hitting right in that sweetspot of about 1/3rd of games lost - which seems to be the overall level of the game. Which is cool to know!
There is another thing that makes me marvel at game balance. I did not look at other players data for this, but most of my games, with four heroes, take exactly 7 rounds. I find this quite impressive. It also makes me wonder how many rounds three characters / five characters game can take, and if the duration differences have any impact on the perceived abilities and tactics of each hero...
We just had a couple of...interesing games. Firstly, we had Tempest, the Adept, and Bunker (I've started playing just one hero while my partner plays two - I was the Adept in this game) versus Spite. We eventually managed to very, very slowly claw our way to victory with the Adept and Tempest spamming heals and damage soak to counter the toxic-damage-and-discard-cards drug while Bunker used Turret Mode to plink away at him. The game lasted about an hour and a half but we managed to defeat the bugger with Bunker and Adept's hp at around 2-5 while Tempest was around 11 or something.
Then we had a game versus Gloomweaver - me as the Adept with my partner playing Tachyon and Mr Fixer. It was already not going very well when we had the Chosen Disciple come out in the first round and do five damage in one hit (due to there being three zombies in play at the start, of course). Later we had pretty much every other type of cultist out (two of the one who deals fire and infernal damage) and several zombies. And Strength of the Grave. Within a couple of rounds of starting we were all in or approaching single figure hp totals. Tachyon went down first, then Mr Fixer followed a few rounds later, and finally the Adept. We'd destroyed the Pouch of Bones and had half-destroyed the Grimoire of Curses (which had come out while the Pouch was still at around half health). All in all, rather embarrassing to have been defeated by Gloomy (first time for us), but the cards just went his way. The skinny bastard :P.
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0AqClP82b_XgZdFVreEhkOWJYcmlvcDNMbWppejh5aGc#gid=5
on that page, over on the right, you can see the # of rounds for people who have recorded it.
22 games - 7 rounds
25 games - 8 rounds
28 games - 6 rounds
so yes that appears to be the desired time limit, 6-8 rounds. :)
Lol, our last game against Spite (the one detailed in my previous post on this thread) lasted a record (for us) fifteen rounds! Our fastest has been five rounds (Baron Blade) but mostly then seem to last roughly between six and ten rounds. The thrashing we got from Gloomy earlier took nine.
I don't know that I would want Akash'Bhuta to be more difficult. All of her games involve her playing cards and shuffling her deck multiple times in a turn. I worry that if she was beefed up or made to be more challenging that it would just result in the game being more tedious rather than more of a challenge. Even when she plays five billion cards with multiple Eruptions and Environment plays, her games are still pretty awesome.
Yeah, Akash'Bhuta feels really fun to me. She's easy if you can manage the stuff she has out, but there's always going to be a couple times per game when she spikes tons of cards so fights against her have a really fun and interesting texture. With certain environments she can be a real bear, too.
I wonder how much of that number is sampling bias. I mean, you've already got an expansion at that point so you're probably not going to be playing Akash'Bhuta if you don't have at least one experienced player at the table.
True, you can look at the # of games played - akash only has 30ish games compared to Baron Blades almost 60 games. We're still in low numbers data wise for individual aspects of the game, but its coming together.
Urgh, we had a game against her last night that lasted about an hour and forty minutes or something. We eventually managed to wear her down but it took ages. The last few games we've played I've reverted to playing just one hero (making a total of three in the team), and those games have seemed more difficult and/or lasted longer than usual.
Based on the stats, 4 players appears to be the general sweet spot for winning.
Here's something we might add: an option for resigned games. I had a three player game against Iron Legacy where I was playing Nightmist. I had a situation where Nightmist could survive for a real long time, but her allies were dead, and concluding the game on damage was going to be a struggle. Since I was playing the game with other people, I conceded, rather than exclude them and play with myself for an hour or two.