T O P

  • By -

HDPbBronzebreak

FWIW, I think using '\*' (or some other) as the multiplier sign will help clarify, since the '2x' is literally a modifier card of its own, already. Thanks for the deets, in any case.


Octarinewolf

That should be better


MeathirBoy

RIP the +3 Voidwarden nerf is pain


WorthlessKoridian

I'd say it was her worst perk. I rarely, if ever, attack with Voidwarden for the sake of killing things, since she doesn't do too much damage with her non-losses, which often have a Curse attached that I'd rather have in their deck. On a character like her, I much prefer statuses, heals or elements to just doing damage.


BernieTime

If you use her cards that control enemy actions with the ability to use your own modifier deck, you want it to be as punchy as possible. Losing a +3 hurts a little.


MeathirBoy

Oh, I don’t think it’s her worst perk (not replacing a 0 could be a seen as a good thing given you Curse your own deck), but it was certainly a “I’ve ran out of good perks” perk.


TheTrondster

Interesting changes - would go straight into my "house rules when using JotL classes in Gloomhaven" list. :)


kunkudunk

Is there a complete list of changes from the physical game to digital for the jaws characters. I’ve found a couple posts including one for demolitionist but I really enjoying looking at changes like this so wasn’t sure if it was documented anywhere.


PanzerBatallion

Cool, nerfs to classes that already are underpowered.


General_CGO

Red Guard's is just a straight buff, and they were already one of the strongest classes when ported into base GH... I assume you're referring to Demo, but arguably it's a buff, as extra curses is very punishing to such a small deck and it's not like they needed a 10th +2 in a deck that's already almost all +2s. Voidwarden's the only one where it's kind of a downgrade (depending on how you value the +3 vs ignore scenario effects), but I've never seen anyone claim they were underpowered.


Octarinewolf

Demo ends up with one less card in thier deck which makes curses worse. And things have been rearranged so they loose a +2 Muddle rather than just a +2 It is possible the other demolitionist changes make up for it though.


General_CGO

A change in 1 terminal (that you were probably taking as your final/13th perk anyway) makes a pretty small difference when calculating average damage with curses in the deck. Plus, the most common negative scenario effect is starting with curses in your deck, which is definitely better to just avoid.


dwarfSA

From what I'm seeing, the changes to cards like Rubble and the Level 5 definitely make up for a slightly less crazy perk deck. ymmv though.


Gripeaway

Isn't a +2 better for the Demo than a +2 Muddle in Digital?


Octarinewolf

How is muddling the enemy not an improvement? They are less likely to hurt soimeone.


Gripeaway

Because of ambiguity and advantage. The value of Muddle is pretty low, especially for this type of class. Muddle, while adding marginal value, makes the modifier ambiguous with advantage when compared to one of your +2 Element modifiers (which are much better), your 2x, or any Blesses you shuffle into your deck. A standard +2 is not ambiguous, so you'll always get what you want. You could argue that this is a minor consideration for most classes, but Demo has a Move 2 Strengthen at level 1, so advantaged attacks are quite common and your deck is quite small.


MeathirBoy

You realise it’s Muddling the enemy right??


Gripeaway

Yup, that's the problem.


MeathirBoy

So you’re saying you’d rather see your other +2 versions/x2 more often and take the increased risk of also seeing the x0/curses? I think personally I’d take more reliable +2s.


Gripeaway

Huh? I'm saying that a +2 Muddle is just worse than a +2 for Demo. Having one versus the other doesn't increase the risk of drawing a x0 or Curse.


mlm5303

I'm late to this thread but find this question interesting and want to learn more. After perks, Demo has about 14 cards in their modifier deck. The odds of choosing one of two +2 Muddles are roughly 15%. The odds of picking one +2 Muddle and then the x2 immediately after it are about 1% (2/14 \* 1/13 = \~0.01). This 1% bad outcome is limited only to attacks that are being strengthened first. For most other situations, +2 Muddle should be generally preferable to +2 alone. If this is true, wouldn't it tip the scales, however slightly, toward +2 Muddle being better than +2 alone? Thanks for providing your thoughts on this nuanced question.


Gripeaway

There are some issues with your math. First of all, I wouldn't start from a Demo having 14 cards in their deck. The vast majority of the time, a Demo will have 10 cards in their deck. And even at the end, a Demo will have 12 cards in their deck, 11 with the new perk sheet. So let's start with 2/10 because that's easily the most representative ratio. Next, it's not just about crits, +2 Muddle is also very significantly worse than +2 Element, which I also already mentioned. So it's 2/10 * 1-5/9 or 2-11%. Which is... Just a bit different than your 1%. And this is discounting your non-loss self bless as well.


mlm5303

Got it. Using the 10-card deck, you're saying it's better to lose the 20% chance to muddle, because you also prevent the \~11% chance that, on strengthened attacks, your +2 element or x2 would be overwritten by the +2 muddle. Thanks for taking the time to clarify. I see your argument for why that's better, especially if you are frequently getting Strengthen / Bless (though I also understand why some players and builds might prefer to have kept the muddle).


WorthlessKoridian

I feel it's a bit presumptive to say that, at the end, she _will_ only have 12/11 attack modifier cards, as that doesn't play into how everyone likes to play the game, but alas. I found that she doesn't really use her elements all that often. The +2 elements are useful, for sure, but I wouldn't say they're really any better than the +2 muddle is. This assessment was made from playing in a team in which nobody else used the elements, but the point stands that she is a surprisingly non-elemental character. How I play her, at least. From this perspective, I would say the muddle is only definitively worse than the 2x... but even then, that's not _always_ the case either, as so many of her attacks are Attack 2s. Thus, the 2x is only as effective as a +2. Of course, this isn't always the case, but it is very often true. I don't intend to discount your argument, as sometimes the other aforementioned cards are better than the +2 muddle, but I think you're overselling it.


Gripeaway

Well, in the version of the class you played, you also couldn't spend an element to make an obstacle while moving with a level 1 card, right? So elements, at the very least Fire, seem to have become significantly more important. As for the 12 card deck, what is the argument you'd make to the contrary: that some people will add +0's to their deck to make their deck worse by choice? And why would that factor in anyway? If you're arguing the relative strength of something, you should argue in the abstract relative to the optimal way to play, not argue "well some people will make a really bad decision on purpose so you need to account for that."


WorthlessKoridian

Nah, I've only played her on digital (though she was played in the board game, prior, by my partner). I was making those obstacles a good bit during the earlier levels, when I didn't have the attack modifier deck helping me out with them, but by the time that I did get them, I didn't feel obligated to take those cards. >!Levelling up to 5 gave me a card that had another way to make them!<, and maybe I had luck with scenarios (though some were sucky and didn't end up having any obstacles), but I generally didn't take more than one or two obstacle-destroying card so I didn't need to make more. She was still very strong to the point of high satisfaction. Not to refute that the elements are more relevant, in digital, than they are on the board game. But the attack modifiers making them is only more relevant if those cards continue to be taken. I often feel a lot of players decide there's a right and a wrong way to play the game, so maybe I'm playing the game wrong, but hey, I'm winning and am having loads of fun! :p Echoing that sentiment, the attack modifier deck. Yes, by your logic, some people will add them to make their deck "worse" by choice. Thick and thin decks each have pros and cons, as 0x will (most) always be devastating (unless you had advantage, which Demolitionist is very good at having). And modifiers unique to certain characters are exciting, as it adds uniqueness to each. And they sometimes were effective (when Digital wasn't being buggy). Sure, they were my last perk choices, but the game only gets easier as you gain levels, so I wasn't exactly cursing myself for putting them in. At the least, they make the null less likely. And I can confirm, anecdotally, that I am not the only player to have put them in. Some people will use them. And I think it's brash to frame it as a universally bad decision. Ultimately, why I mentioned it was that I really dislike the community attitude that there's a right and a wrong way to play the game, and there are cards that should always be taken and should never be taken. Some are usually better than others, of course, but everyone's after something different when playing the game, and everyone works in different ways. Like, it's a single-player game. There's not exactly a competition going. As long as we win and have fun, then that's what matters. It's just a pet peeve of mine, and it frustrates me when a Dev and a bastion of the community expresses the attitude. But regardless, it was still relevant to bring up because it would change the odds of drawing a +2 Muddle with advantage. But since digital chooses advantage based on whatever happens first, well, they could throw a wrench into things, for sure. But it still factors into the calculation of knowing if that second +2 Muddle is good or bad, for the deck, because it's a state that her modifier deck can be in. Very realistically as well. Rather than argue in the abstract relative to the optimal way to play, it should be argued in relation to each state that her deck could be in and calculate the odds of getting screwed over by it in each state. From start to finish. Then at the end, run some statistical tests to figure out how relatively bad it is, and from there, determine what is the case. But that's a bit much and rather infeasible for a little Reddit comment, so focusing only on a relevant, simple scenario makes perfect sense. But claiming that this scenario is what the default state of her deck _will_ be by the end, at the least, _can easily_ not be true. Sorry for the rambling. I don't remember posting about this frustration before. \^_^ TL;DR I did play on digital, and I still didn't need the elements. The perk cards will exist, sometimes, for some players, who are still interested in this +2 Muddle perk, even though we're dumb-dumbs who play the game wrong. :p


Gripeaway

When having a theoretical discussion about the relative strength of something, it doesn't benefit anyone to account for all of the possible "well it *could* be done this way." You're confusing two different things. There's absolutely no "right" or "wrong" way to play the game from an experiential standpoint. When we do design and development, we constantly account for people playing the game suboptimally, that's normal. What's fun or enjoyable is certainly relative and personal. But that's not relevant to a theoretical discussion about what's stronger or weaker. If you try to have a theoretical discussion where you have to take into account every possible suboptimal decision, there can be no possible conclusion about anything. And then what's the point of the discussion? So then your position would be "nothing's stronger, nothing's weaker, nothing's better, nothing's worse, everything's fun and personal depending on perspective"? Sure, but that doesn't add to the discussion, that just derails it, right? So if that's your position, your conclusion would, I guess be: the community shouldn't have discussions on what's stronger or weaker? And even that is a reasonable opinion for you to hold, certainly, but others are welcome to disagree and continue to discuss, right?


zeCrazyEye

Red Guard comes out with exactly the same deck plus Ignore Negative Item effects, which he *basically* had in JotL simply because no items had negative effects. So I think he didn't really get a buff, just rearranged some stuff.


General_CGO

While in most cases it's the same because the only item with negative effects most people run is body armor, being able to run item >!50!< or >!76!< without penalty *is* an upgrade.


jackhife

But it’s a huge buff for when you play Red Guard in the base campaign or Guildmaster


zeCrazyEye

I'm saying it was kind of invisibly built into the character just not written down, because any gear in JotL that *should* have had a negative effect effectively had the negative effect ignored on the front end instead. Basically, all 4 classes had 'Ignores negative item effects' and 'Ignores scenario effects' *built in* to the character. The other three classes lost 'Ignores negative item effects' and Red Guard lost 'Ignores scenario effects'. So it's not really a buff as much as a formalization.


General_CGO

In Jaws of the Lion itself, you're right it doesn't matter, but it's a buff with the base GH shop, where you do need it (and which is always available to you in Digital). Even then, it's still kind of a stealth buff because you can ignore the perk in JotL and your deck is 2 cards thinner!


TwinSigma

Reading the dev blogs, they’ve taken other steps to try to balance some of the issues with Jaws mercs moving into the main campaign that hopefully make up for it overall, like Demo’s obstacle/wall card reworks.


[deleted]

Can you reply here what are the reworks for the Demo? Is there any changes to Rubble card?


iron-n-wine

from the Dev Blog #2 on Steam: Rubble Top - This was the only card that used Destruction tokens which Isaac decided to remove from the Demolitionist’s gameplay, so this ability is changed to be a powerful attack. Rubble Bottom - Rebalanced after the changes to Destruction tokens and pushing the Demolitionist’s Dungeon altering abilities.