How to beat Lum.

Discussion in 'Puzzle-Strike: Bag of Chips' started by liq3, Sep 26, 2010.

  1. Sirlin

    Sirlin Steward of the Realm Staff Member

    I don't understand that claim at all. First of all what it does it change him from being soft-banned on the development server and potentially actually really banned later, to a reasonable power level. See Chump, Sotek, BT's comments that Lum was winning a hell of a lot versus the field, far more than his share and dominating in a bad way.

    Next, what do you mean he is mono-purple? So if you could buy gem essence, you won't? If you could buy knockdown, you won't? If others are buying attacks and you could buy Self-Improvement, you won't? If you could buy a roundhouse, you won't? These would indicate playing poorly. Also, if in all those cases you would not buy any non-purples, I don't know why you'd buy them with any other character either.

    In short, it's just too dangerous to spend tens of thousands of dollars to ship the game when one character is so big of a problem as to possibly be banned, and second, I don't get the purple comment at all.
  2. garcia1000

    garcia1000 World Champion Moderator (old) Staff Member


    Answer: garcia1000, who was one of the guys saying that PW requiring an action would be the default understanding of the rules by humans
  3. sage

    sage Well-Known Member

    Lum is still very good. He is possibly more interesting now, with another restriction to play around, and he is no longer totally dominant. This is a good change.
  4. Zejety

    Zejety Patreon Supporter

    So now his possible starting turns result in:

    [1] = 1-gem
    [2] = Poker Winnings
    = Panda's Bargain
    [0] = Living on the Edge
    [C] = Crash Gem

    [2][C][0][1] - [1][1][1][1][1]
    3$ - 5$ (no crashing) from 4$ - 5$ (crashing)

    [2][C][1][1] - [0][1][1][1][1]
    4$ - 4$ (no crashing) from 5$ - 4$ (crashing)

    [2][0][1][1] - [C][1][1][1][1]
    4$ - 4$ (crashing) no changes

    [2][C][0][1][1] - [1][1][1][1]
    4$ - 6$ (no crashing) from 5$ - 6$ (crashing)

    [C][0][1][1] - [2][1][1][1][1]
    3$ - 6$ (cashing) no changes

    [2][1][1][1] - [C][0][1][1][1]
    5$ - 4$ (crashing) from 6$ - 4$ (crashing)

    [2][C][1][1][1] - [0][1][1][1]
    5$ - 4$ (not crashing) from 6$ - 4$ (crashing)

    [2][0][1][1][1] - [C][1][1][1]
    5$ - 4$ (crashing) no changes

    So in 5 out of 8 combinations the nerf results in -1$ in the first two turns and in 4 out of 8 there is 1 more gem ending up in the gem pile (unless Lum CCs).

    Generally speaking, within the first two turns the nerf only applies when Lum draws either [[2] and [C]] or [[2][1][1][1]].
  5. ApolloAndy

    ApolloAndy Well-Known Member

    I think new Lum actually has many important decisions to make. At first glance, he has reasonable choices to go econ, fork, or purple on his first turns. And if he goes fork, then he has a big slate of options (like throwing in reds).

    The original thing that made him boring (and some say too good) was he never *really* needed to go econ and doing so was just gravy and since he only had 2 enders forks were basically useless. He always wanted chips with a single black arrow and he always had the money to do so. The biggest decision he had to make was when to switch from buying cantrips to combines and when to grab the second crash, but since he was faster than everyone there wasn't a big penalty for being wrong here.
    (Note, in spite of all this, I still don't think he was OP, but oh well.)

    I think the new Lum lost the "always had the money to do so" part of the equation and has a much bigger penalty for making the wrong decision about whether to buy money, a combine, or a fork on his first turn or two. It makes is a much more interesting decision unless the result is you lose either way in which case it's still not very interesting.
  6. ApolloAndy

    ApolloAndy Well-Known Member

    T: Zejesty

    True that many of the money figures may end up the same or close, but $1 is a lot (imagine starting with a wound instead of one of the 1-gems) and also missing the opportunity to move a gem from hand to pile is also a loss, even if you come out with the same money.

    Also, the pairs of hands aren't all equally likely. I don't know which are more and which are less, but it's not quite as simple as "5/8 hands are _________."
  7. Zejety

    Zejety Patreon Supporter

    I have not denied that this nerf hurts him. And as I explained a few posts earlier: I'm not confident of my balance opinions because I'm merely an amateur in PS.
    I've just posted this so that others can argue about it.
  8. ApolloAndy

    ApolloAndy Well-Known Member

    Ah. Okay. Then ignore the first sentence of my post. ;)
  9. Zejety

    Zejety Patreon Supporter

    At any rate, Poker Winnings now pales in comparison to Versatile Style.
    Is Panda's Bargain's deck thinning powerful enough to make up for that?
  10. x1372

    x1372 Active Member

    While poker winnings is strictly worse than versatile style now, for the vast majority of situations its the same thing. The only times I ever saw anyone use versatile style to draw was off forks, and I have never seen it used for its pig.

    Being able to thin his deck out is quite useful, and getting extra money out of it is a bonus when bargain is used early.

    LoTE is still a monster endgame.

    I dunno. I see both Lum and Grave as legitimate options with these changes. And if nothing else, it DEFINITELY makes lum make more decisions, which is good. If it somehow makes lum too weak, it won't be by such a huge margin that he's useless.
  11. ChumpChange

    ChumpChange Well-Known Member Staff Member

    In a way, it doesn't even matter if he was OP. If super boring too easy guy with barely any decisions is anywhere in the top 3, tourneys are much much much worse.

    That universe is dead now.
  12. Xom

    Xom Patreon Supporter

    Earlier this week I introduced a Dominion player to the game, and he randomed Lum, and afterward he said the concept was cool but he felt like there wasn't much decision-making.

Share This Page