Struesdell's Theorycrafting

I spent a few hours this afternoon doing something silly.

I made a spreadsheet. It's a super secret proprietary spreadsheet that uses MATH to figure out how much to value cards at. YEP. MATH.

So, frex, other places on the forum list Lieselotte at ~350k Luna.
I punch that into my crazy spreadsheet and I get this:

Alex @ 190,000 Luna
Angela @ 350,000 Luna
Lieselotte @ 350,000 Luna
Dorothy (Hero) @ 350,000 Luna
Miriam @ 450,000 Luna

The spreadsheet weighs the stats on the cards and their skills to reach a relative rating for every card released to date. Then it uses that in a comparison to generate prices based on observed prices.

So in this example: Angela, Lieselotte and Dorothy (Hero) are all pretty similar in overall power, so their prices are pretty similar. Alex is the worst 4* and it's WAY WORSE than Lieselotte. Miriam looks like the best 4*. Higher stats than Lieselotte and the same skill.

I'm ranking Knockback > Slow > Area Attack > Poison = Bonus Range > Atk Bonus (type).

I should probably find a way to include the value of sets that aren't available in the wild anymore, like the Dark Elves. :/
That might adjust those other cards further down since they're still in circulation.

I NEED MORE DATA.

Attack bonus is surprisingly useful, something people don't realize.

Have you weighted the special skills?

Anyway, while that's definitely interesting as an experiment, and something like that would be useful in perfectly rational markets, I also think it's hard to predict which cards people will go for based on looks, rarity, etc. Like I've never understood why Adolph is worth what he is, considering his skill and stats are not too great.

Or does your spreadsheet want to answer that question mathematically?

clocksprocket wrote:

Attack bonus is surprisingly useful, something people don't realize.

Have you weighted the special skills?

I'd like to add some value to Camille for sure, since Camille benefits from his own bonus.

clocksprocket wrote:

Anyway, while that's definitely interesting as an experiment, and something like that would be useful in perfectly rational markets, I also think it's hard to predict which cards people will go for based on looks, rarity, etc. Like I've never understood why Adolph is worth what he is, considering his skill and stats are not too great.

Or does your spreadsheet want to answer that question mathematically?

Math can do anything!
Honestly I'll keep an eye on people's offers and adjust the spreadsheet to reflect popularity and a history of actual offers over time.
It won't solve for everything with perfect accuracy, but it helps me figure out how much I should value a card at based entirely on its raw effectiveness.

History over time is something I'd definitely be interested in.

Actually gonna send you a PM about something.

If you get it working I think I can setup multiple people with ownership rights for the google docs card database. If I can, I could set you up and you could integrate it

struesdell wrote:

I spent a few hours this afternoon doing something silly.

I made a spreadsheet. It's a super secret proprietary spreadsheet that uses MATH to figure out how much to value cards at. YEP. MATH.

So, frex, other places on the forum list Lieselotte at ~350k Luna.
I punch that into my crazy spreadsheet and I get this:

Alex @ 190,000 Luna
Angela @ 350,000 Luna
Lieselotte @ 350,000 Luna
Dorothy (Hero) @ 350,000 Luna
Miriam @ 450,000 Luna

The spreadsheet weighs the stats on the cards and their skills to reach a relative rating for every card released to date. Then it uses that in a comparison to generate prices based on observed prices.

So in this example: Angela, Lieselotte and Dorothy (Hero) are all pretty similar in overall power, so their prices are pretty similar. Alex is the worst 4* and it's WAY WORSE than Lieselotte. Miriam looks like the best 4*. Higher stats than Lieselotte and the same skill.

I'm ranking Knockback > Slow > Area Attack > Poison = Bonus Range > Atk Bonus (type).

I should probably find a way to include the value of sets that aren't available in the wild anymore, like the Dark Elves. :/
That might adjust those other cards further down since they're still in circulation.

I NEED MORE DATA.

Hold on Angela is worth more than the others, she's fast and deals good damage to boot with it - also, she has poison.

----> this is why Biance is valued so low in comparison, although being a reasonable card for damage only. (Its like a nerfed Angela)

Serotheo wrote:

Hold on Angela is worth more than the others, she's fast and deals good damage to boot with it - also, she has poison.

----> this is why Biance is valued so low in comparison, although being a reasonable card for damage only. (Its like a nerfed Angela)

Really? Let's look at the math!

Angela's max stats look like:
Speed S
Range 130
Land Damage 21940
Air Damage 0
Sea Damage 17791
Poison 4

Lieselotte's are
Speed C
Range 150
Land Damage 18430
Air Damage 12256
Sea Damage 14762
Knockback 4

My preliminary investigations into attack speed suggest that a speed of S is around 1.3 attacks per second, compared to C's 1 per second.

The 130 attack range on Angela compared to 150 on Lieselotte means targets are in range for ~86% as long assuming no knockback.
So without the Knockback Lieselotte wins for time-on-target by 16%.

Angela's Land Attack is 19% better than Lieselotte's.
Angela can't hit flying enemies.
Lieselotte's knockback is better at helping other units hit the target also.
Angela's poison probably makes her DPS against non-flying critters even better. I don't have any measurable data on poison damage yet.

I'd say they're pretty close.
In a 1v1, I think Lieselotte is going to win just because her Knockback lets her keep a single target in range indefinitely while Angela has to hope her high attack speed and poison let her kill the target in less time-on-target.

Another thing to consider is that Liesolette is a range unit lacking in Air power; where as she has decent effectiveness against land units in terms of damage the resistance allocated against her is much more in a standard scenario due to her being ranged.

This is similar to the scenario where even the ever powerful Gleb is rendered weak against resistant enemies.

Serotheo wrote:

Another thing to consider is that Liesolette is a range unit lacking in Air power; where as she has decent effectiveness against land units in terms of damage the resistance allocated against her is much more in a standard scenario due to her being ranged.

This is similar to the scenario where even the ever powerful Gleb is rendered weak against resistance enemies.

Sure, which Quest are we doing? 24-6?
Incubus:
Melee Def C (normal damage)
Ranged Def C (normal damage)
Magic Def C (normal damage)

Ravenous Bear:
Melee Def C (normal damage)
Ranged Def D (bonus damage)
Magic Def D (bonus damage)

Mummy
Melee Def C (normal damage)
Ranged Def A (low damage)
Magic Def A (low damage)

Cockatrice
Melee Def D (bonus damage)
Ranged Def D (bonus damage)
Magic Def B (low damage)

Yeah, that's probably a little bit of a negative for Lieselotte on account of the mummies.

I think overall I'd prefer a knockback unit that can hit flying units, regardless of relative ineffectiveness there, given that Angela can't do that at all.
I feel like Lieselotte is a better team player too, since the Knockback means your other units get more time-on-target also.

struesdell wrote:

I spent a few hours this afternoon doing something silly.

I made a spreadsheet. It's a super secret proprietary spreadsheet that uses MATH to figure out how much to value cards at. YEP. MATH.

So, frex, other places on the forum list Lieselotte at ~350k Luna.
I punch that into my crazy spreadsheet and I get this:

Alex @ 190,000 Luna
Angela @ 350,000 Luna
Lieselotte @ 350,000 Luna
Dorothy (Hero) @ 350,000 Luna
Miriam @ 450,000 Luna

The spreadsheet weighs the stats on the cards and their skills to reach a relative rating for every card released to date. Then it uses that in a comparison to generate prices based on observed prices.

So in this example: Angela, Lieselotte and Dorothy (Hero) are all pretty similar in overall power, so their prices are pretty similar. Alex is the worst 4* and it's WAY WORSE than Lieselotte. Miriam looks like the best 4*. Higher stats than Lieselotte and the same skill.

I'm ranking Knockback > Slow > Area Attack > Poison = Bonus Range > Atk Bonus (type).

I should probably find a way to include the value of sets that aren't available in the wild anymore, like the Dark Elves. :/
That might adjust those other cards further down since they're still in circulation.

I NEED MORE DATA.

how is alex the worst 4*, shouldn't it be zenobia? or you mean just statwise?

tzerherman wrote:

how is alex the worst 4*, shouldn't it be zenobia? or you mean just statwise?

I would love to know how you're evaluating Zenobia below Alex using not stats?
Because maybe you don't realize just how bad Alex's stats are.

Alex has a skill, which buffs your other male units fielded. That's pretty much her only value, as otherwise she's less good at land attack than the 2* card Enrique. She's less good at Sea attack than the 2* Anna. She's decent at air attack, being worse than the 3* Hector but at least out-classing the 2* cards.

I need to figure out exactly how much her Attack Bonus 4 for male units grants to those other units.

I've heard that Camille's attack boost is 30% raw, 40% with maxed skills.
I'm guess Alex is 25% raw, 35% with maxed skills then.

What would be super cool is if you can figure out the optimal enhancement routine. I figure you want to enhance as much as possible at lvl 1, where the cost is the cheapest.
Right now, I enhance my 2*s to lvl 4 with 3 1*s. Then when I run out of space, I enhance the card I want (a 4* or 5*) with about 45 lvl4 2*s. This gets them from lvl 1 to ~lvl 40. But the quest grinding from lvl 40 -> lvl 80 is sooooooo boring. I'd think about enhance some 3*s if I knew the right numbers...

Simple cost analysis:
1* lvl1 sells for ~1k
2* lvl1 sells for ~5k
2* lvl4 costs you 8k raw + 1.2k enhancement cost = 9.2k. Some people buy 2* lvl4 at 10k, which is slightly better than selling the lvl1 1*s and 2*s, but not by much.
3* lvl1 sells for ~50k (ones with skill sell higher)
3* lvl20 sells for ~150k (? Not sure about this number, never sold any of these). But how many 1*s does it take to get to lvl20?

struesdell wrote:

tzerherman wrote:

how is alex the worst 4*, shouldn't it be zenobia? or you mean just statwise?

I would love to know how you're evaluating Zenobia below Alex using not stats?
Because maybe you don't realize just how bad Alex's stats are.

Alex has a skill, which buffs your other male units fielded. That's pretty much her only value, as otherwise she's less good at land attack than the 2* card Enrique. She's less good at Sea attack than the 2* Anna. She's decent at air attack, being worse than the 3* Hector but at least out-classing the 2* cards.

I need to figure out exactly how much her Attack Bonus 4 for male units grants to those other units.

My Alex lv50 give a roughly around 30% atk boost. It pretty useful because it give all my allies unit around 10000 for each land air and sea atk and total for 30000.

CreativeCC wrote:

My Alex lv50 give a roughly around 30% atk boost. It pretty useful because it give all my allies unit around 10000 for each land air and sea atk and total for 30000.

Okay, that's a great datapoint.
A unit making an attack only uses one of their three attack ratings at a time, so the +30,000 only works out if you're boosting Max Vlad's land attack.
That said, if you've got 3 allies with a 45k stat getting a 30% boost, that's pretty phenomenal.
I'll definitely up-value the Attack Plus skill based on your and Strenhelden's testimony.

Strenhelden seems to think it's a 25% boost for Alex for all men.

Let's assume that because Alex is a 4* card, we're valuing her for people who are running mostly 4* cards so I'm not going to boost a 5*s number for this test.

Let's assume you're running Alex and 5 allies doing 24-6.
Let's assume your allies are all using the best single attack power unit that doesn't run against defenses on that quest, so you have four allies with Max Antons. Each Anton has 36528 Land attack.
Alex is giving them 25% more attack EACH.
So Each Anton rolls an extra 9132 attack.
So Alex's contribution to the fight is her own land attack of 11522 which her skill doesn't modify, plus 5x9132. Everybody has an attack speed of C and while the Antons are at 130 range, Alex has 150. Alex's direct attack is 1.16* better because she has more range, so we end up with closer to 13364 for her attack dps. Alex's total contribution is 59025 per second.

Not shabby! Definitely better than Zenobia's 31300/sec. About 20% better. In the best-case scenario.

struesdell wrote:

CreativeCC wrote:

My Alex lv50 give a roughly around 30% atk boost. It pretty useful because it give all my allies unit around 10000 for each land air and sea atk and total for 30000.

Okay, that's a great datapoint.
A unit making an attack only uses one of their three attack ratings at a time, so the +30,000 only works out if you're boosting Max Vlad's land attack.
That said, if you've got 3 allies with a 45k stat getting a 30% boost, that's pretty phenomenal.
I'll definitely up-value the Attack Plus skill based on your and Strenhelden's testimony.

As you said, I'm very lucky most of my allies have maxed 5* or 6* so Alex is like a super boost for me.

Updated the previous with a little more theorycrafting.

I think if you DON'T have an optimal ally set that Alex is going to look a little less good.
But yeah you're right, if you've got even a few 5*, 6* allies then Alex is gonna shine.

No one ever listens to me when I say attack boosts are really underrated. Like I thought it sounded like a bad special effect as well, but all it takes is putting one of those units down to realize, hey, this is really good! Especially since you can train the skill to give more boost at a time AND all of this is increased even more by the +x% to attack boosts you can train. At the end of the day you might be boosting unit stats by like 50%. Camille works the same way, but mostly on himself. People don't really realize he's one of the (if not the) strongest land attack 5*s especially if you have extra skills trained.

*cough*BackToTradingInsteadOfSpammingThisGuysTopicPloxKbai....?*cough*

*coughnobackseatmoderatingthankscough*

Wow, this forum is pretty good, and see a few of my allies posting too @.@ (hi CreativeCC)

I haf a noob question, hope some intellectual and dependable being (pro) would give me a good answer:
what is the attack speed of: S, A, B, C, D, E in human terms (attack per second for example)?

this is hugely important to me ppl, and definitely good to know for others

This thread was split from struesdell's trading thread. Please continue any discussion here.

Struesdell actually worked those numbers out (or, well, we think) yesterday, I'll go see if I can find them.

e: struesdell was testing that earlier and here's what he has to say:

Quote :

I'm pretty confident now that Attack Speed is something like

S: 1.3/s
A: 1.2/s
B: 1.1/s
C: 1/s
D: .9/s
E: .8/s

Assuming a similar target, the relative time-on-target for the different Range values is:

110 (short) 84%
130 (melee) 100%
150 (baseline ranged/magic) 116%
175 (long range) 135%
200 (extreme range) 155%

This is for a straight-line quest too, doesn't account for placement on a corner.

Hopefully it's all right with him for me to share this information, since it's his work, and it's not entirely done yet. But there are a lot of places to go from here.

I gotta say I'm impressed many thanks for the hardwork!
I always thought attack speed of E is like super slow, but well, wat do I know

Lionpunisher wrote:

I gotta say I'm impressed many thanks for the hardwork!
I always thought attack speed of E is like super slow, but well, wat do I know

I dunno, maybe you do know!

The S,A,B,C and D speeds I verified to within human error before I passed out last night. E I haven't actually measured with a stopwatch yet. I'm mostly using 25-3 for testing because of the volume of targets. About half way through some Poisonous Plants show up and there's enough of a gap that I can reset my clock and count pretty well uninterrupted.
Since the difference was so clearly .1 for the other speeds, I just guessed on E.

The other thing I was testing for last night was the perceived delay in Magic type attacks vs Missile type. The perception was that Missiles move faster in the air, hitting their targets sooner. I'll have to do more testing, but looking at Estlin and Harvine

Estlin is Magic, Speed D and Range 150.
Harvine is Missile, Speed D and Range 150.

Firing on Poisonous Plants running parallel on 25-3, they each took exactly the same number of shots in perfect synch and their attacks seemed to start their "hit" animations at exactly the same times. I think it's just that the magic orb takes longer to complete its animation and disappear because it does that little "Burst" when it hits, vs the missile which just "pops"

I'm loving this thread!

Actually, several days ago I was going to ask for something like this; a sort of a ranking system for units/cards.

Obviously you won't be able to factor in 'the human element'.
14year old boys will want cards with scantily clad large breasted women over guys wearing drab clothing.
Still it's good to have a 'sort-of' guide to go by.
It's like comic book collecting.....that comic is worth that amount ONLY to someone who is willing to pay for it.




I once punched a McDonalds to the ground.

Okay so I adjusted the Attack boost skills so that the Men/Women variants are worth about as much as Knockback and Camille's is worth about the same as Poison.

With that in mind, here's some relative values for the cards available in the new set.

Theresa: Medium. Her stats are ridiculously low, so only use her if you're building a very specific team around her.
Carl: Decent. Better than Katherine, worse than Elvira.
Hans: Great. Low 4 levels of greatness.

Christof: Between Robert and Mylene. Low for a 4 .
Helmut: Better than Gunnel.
Georgine: Better than Miriam, Gleb.

Fransiska: Between Margarite and Lucrezia.
Stefan: Between Hildegarde and Rose.
Heidimarie: Up with the 6 kids. Super great. Better than Joachim.

Cecilia: Not great for a 6 .

Note that this is NOT their value for the actual Colosseum event. I haven't worked out a stat weight that reflects their usefulness for this event yet.