Looking at league statistics is interesting for our designers and a good opportunity for us to see how actual player behaviour might differ to what we expected.
Betrayal's endgame content was focused around Safehouses. These were not intended to be equally common, and we had a rough idea of what it would look like if a player was making naïve choices (that is, without trying to influence which safehouses they were running).
We did expect players to try to push research safehouses to be more common, and we knew that they would also make choices based on the perceived value of the rewards. There were a lot of changes to Betrayal decision outcomes during development for various choices to try to prevent one strategy being completely dominant. These statistics are taken from the most recent week, and so represent the later league experience where players have targeted goals and most-fully understand what they are doing:
The most concerning result for us here is that Masterminds are run less often than we intended. Part of this will be the danger of the encounter, which becomes very clear when we look at the breakdown across various Betrayal league types. We can also see that the Safehouse breakdown is much closer to what is intended in SSF leagues, which may suggest the ability to trade changes what strategy players use.
Other elements which factored into how often the Mastermind encounter was run relate to the time to complete, and its rewards. We can see the mean time to complete here:
Challenge Progress (of Players With >=1)
As always, these stats give us useful information for planning future leagues, and will also help greatly if we integrate Betrayal content into the core game. |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||