Fixed with Fast Track?
Nah I meant as a runner vs. it. I played a guy at Regionals that just would get rid of his agendas with DBS when they showed up and only ran the 6. It took so long because I didn’t want to run for fear of getting scorched b/c he was rich but I had to end the game b/c it was our first game and it had been 40 mintues
Sounds like it’s time to bring back Mushin Grid
i think that just the existence of Vanity Project and Back Channels makes Mushin no Shin a lot scarier. is that going to be 6/8 net damage? 3/4 brain damage? or is it 4 agenda points? the runner could ignore it for the safer play and let the corp score 4 if they actually have the balls to bluff that, but what if it’s a trap? the corp can now advance it and sell it off next turn through their own Back Channels for up to 18 credits (-4 from advancing at this point). that’s really scary as well.
even exposing it doesn’t help unless it’s an actual agenda, and you go in and steal it. if it’s a trap, what do you do?
Exploratory Romp, Singularity, and Drive By come to mind as decent counters to this. ER only gets rid of 3 counters, so doesn’t help if corp advances up to 4 (it’s also pretty terrible in general)
Singularity isn’t too terrible and can be used with Eater as well. Drive By is great on its own, so that’s probably the best bet.
but how viable it’ll be… who knows? probably inconsistent anyway, so it won’t be in the top decks of tournaments, but it’ll be fun as hell to play for casual weeklies.
what if by the end of ANR Exploratory Romp truly is a powerful card
if a worlds winning decklist has romp in it, i’ll sell my collection. I feel very safe making this bet.
Sell it to me, cause I’m going to win world with disruptor and exploratory romp, with force of nature
Also, Off The Grid with Crisium Grid on HQ.
disruptor got a bit better with the new NBN current, the one which forces the runner to start the trace-bidding.
Excalibur for the win win win
I wanted to check if the discrete-ness of this composition would make it harder to steal. I used a script I wrote. Here are I think the only reasonable options for non-TFP decks, and some historical options included for comparison.
The number is number of accesses until the runner hits 7.
44GGG3 -> 20.4
3333333 -> 18.8
633333 -> 19.1
33332222 -> 17.0
3GGG2222 -> 20.1
Ycombinator, your suite is too good.
3322222211 -> 17.1
22222222211 -> 17.1
G222222211 -> 18.8 (Calimsha’s suite, counting the 15 minutes as a 0-pointer which I think is reasonable)
What about 333GGG2?
Thanks for the data!
If you compare the 44GGG3 with 3GGG2222 (20.4 vs 20.1 respectively), they’re pretty close in number of accesses. However, -2 agendas, +2 useful cards is a big difference as well. I feel like the 44GGG3 composition opens up corp deck-building a little bit.
That said, it has less flexibility in how it scores (and costs more influence), so take the good with the bad.
I’m looking forward to integrating this into my CI OtG deck.
Would it be possible to re-run the simulations also reporting at least standard deviation, but better the 85th percentile confidence intervals?
My suspicion is that the 44GGG3 composition has a little more variance than the others. 20% of the time, they steal 2 of the 3 agendas that let them win in 2 scores. The lower number of accesses in that case will likely increase the variance significantly compared to the case where the runner must steal three (i.e. 50% of your agendas).
Long story short, I think the average is hiding importance differences between the compositions. The same logic would apply to TFP (do you win the psi-game early, or late…).
Thanks for the simulation! Any interest in adding it to the simulations I used for the QuantANR series? That code-base is also python, so it could integrate well.
I modified @jrp’s script a bit to do comparisons of cumulative probability distributions, and ended up with this chart comparing 44GGG3, 3GGG222, and 333GGG2:
I wonder if Early Premiere will help with scoring these more subtly/easily. If you have one out, VP is on the table just as long as GFI or any other 5/3. Too much influence for outside of NBN, but could still free some room up in the same way Food could.
It’s nice to discuss on how to minimize the agenda density in R&D but at some point, you still need to score those agendas.
Looks like that’s something who got overlooked in this discussion
I tried running the 5-agenda Government Takeover spread. 6x1 + 3x4 + 1x2 to steal on access. That gave 19.2 accesses to win with 9.3 sd, which is an access or two worse than I was expecting – apparently that’s the difference between winning in 2 steals most of the time or winning in 3 (or 4).
Of note is the fact that the worst playable spread with TFP in it is at 22.5 accesses to win, and you can hit 25.9 accesses to win (9.9 sd) with 3x TFP 1x GFI 3x Nisei 1x NAPD, where TFP is stolen 40% of the time and NAPD is stolen 90% of the time.
Looks to me like GFI is going to widen the gap between RP’s agenda suite and the rest of the field, not shrink it.
Edit: Okay, so that’s a little unfair. The worst pre-GFI spreads gain +2 accesses to win, whereas the best TFP spread gains 1.7. So a slight narrowing.
Damn, I hadn’t actually considered this but it should work! Reducing the number of agendas means more slots and it’s rare for it to lose agendas early on thanks to its natural resilence. It’s probably a quesiton of influence.
I think there are many previous discussions about scoring 5/3s. We can reiterate that - and the difficulties therein - here, but I’m not sure if any of it is new. The compositions are new.