Balance issue: order-luck, a no brainer?
 

Maybe these scales should be tweaked a bit, right now it seems that order is the most valuable scale for living nations because of the snowball effect of a healthy early economy, and its trade-offs with luck obviously influence the choices regarding this 2nd scale.

Nobody seems to invest in luck, and experienced players are claiming to go for high order & neutral luck or even missfortune regardless of the event rarity setting, which seems to point out to the existance of some imbalance in the respective value of the scales.

Is there any solid incentive to invest in luck apart from the heroes? Order offers too much of a protection vs bad events, or too much of a reduction of good events regardless of the luck setting IMO.

IMO the scales should be modified as follows (regarding events):

Order: +/- 5% chance of event (instead of the +/- 10% current)
Luck: +/- 15% chance of event being good/bad (instead of the +/- 10% current)

Re: Balance issue: order-luck, a no brainer?
 

I guess luck affects some spells as well..example:crossbreeding. Any more spells affected by luck?

Re: Balance issue: order-luck, a no brainer?
 

I tend to take +3 Luck and -1 Order. But then Im a random luck kindof guy. The formula players who know every algebraic equation for the game wouldnt tend to like luck because of the randoms it tosses in. I avoid order because with it I tend to be too cheap adding protections to my provinces.

Re: Balance issue: order-luck, a no brainer?
 

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">I'm told that Transformation was affected by Luck too but I never checked that by myself.

Re: Balance issue: order-luck, a no brainer?
 

>The formula players who know every algebraic equation for the game wouldnt tend to like luck because of the randoms it tosses in.

I consider myself to be one of those guys, and in Dom1 I was a huge advocate of luck +3. I didn't mind the randomness. I just considered that the effects would naturally even out statistically over time.

Sadly in Dom2 it looks like I am now an advocate of Misfortune +3. It's my opinion that IW was too heavy handed in their treatment of the scales. There is just as much imbalance now as there was before. Just the emphasis has shifted.

Re: Balance issue: order-luck, a no brainer?
 

I don't think it's a good idea for taking luck-3 for some of the nations. If it has not been changed, you still cannot get national heroes with luck less than -1.

For some nations, the heroes are very significant.
Among our old friends, R'lyeh gets the Aboleth and the other mage and Jotun gets the Great Hag.

An extreme example is Tien Chi, all three national heroes are *immortal* mages. One of them can even heal afflictions. With them or without them can make a big difference to your game.

Re: Balance issue: order-luck, a no brainer?
 

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Same here. Although for me the real no-brainers in D1 were Growth+3 and Prod+3. In D2 that's Order+3 and Misfortune+3. I probably wouldn't pick anything else in MP now (although I may revisit this when I've tried all the nations combos).

Re: Balance issue: order-luck, a no brainer?
 

Lucky you! Scale effects will be moddable in the upcoming patch. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

Re: Balance issue: order-luck, a no brainer?
 

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">YAY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

GO GO GROWTH 3!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Hate to correct you there, but actually +3 luck prevents 60% of bad events, while +3 order only prevents 30%. So this is also a bit off:

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">The numbers here are: With Order-0 Luck-0 as a relative 100%, T-3 L-3 gives 52% bad event frequency (.2*1.3/.5), and O-3 U-3 gives 112% bad event frequency (.7*.8/.5). So the turmoil one has double the bad event frequency of the order one, but is barely different from the default neutral scales, other than a high income boost. And almost no good events.

That said, I agree with you that because bad events are dominant, the second scale is preferable to the first, in general (unless you rely on heroes and luck-based crossbreeding, etc). If luck scales had one additional component, the problem might be solved... like this:

ML=major lucky event
SL=small lucky event
SU=small unlucky event
MU=major unlucky event

Luck scale values and relative event probabilities:

Luck..ML...SL....|....SU...MU
+3......50....50....|....10....90
+2......45....55....|....15....85
+1......40....60....|....20....80
+0......30....70....|....30....70
-1.......20....80....|....40....60
-2.......15....85....|....45....55
-3.......10....90....|....50....50

Those percentage values would be multipliers, cumulative with the current system. So, with +3 luck, an event still has a 80% chance of being lucky and 20% chance of being unlucky. But if it is lucky then there is a 50% chance of it being major, and 50% chance of it being minor, and if it is unlucky, there is a 90% chance of it being minor and 10% chance of it being major. The net results for +3 luck would be 40% major good events, 40% major bad events, 18% minor bad events, and 2% major bad events. This way, luck would affect severity as well as frequency. The above scale is just a random proposal - it might be too strong, and might even make +-3 scales even more dominant, but it feels like when you choose +3 luck you should be relatively immune to major bad events like barbarians in your capitol (or else why did you spend those 120 points?), and with -3 you should virtually NEVER get 1500 gold randomly.

-Cherry

P.S. The resultant cumulative scale, showing total event probabilities for each luck scale, assuming an event occurs. KEEP IN MIND that this is NOT how the game works, just a proposal that I have, that may or may not be a good idea.

Luck..ML...SL....|....SU...MU
+3......40....40....|....18....02
+2......32....39....|....26....05
+1......24....36....|....32....08
+0......15....35....|....35....15
-1.......08....32....|....36....24
-2.......05....26....|....39....32
-3.......02....18....|....40....40

P.P.S. This kept getting messed up, the charts are correct now=) If you can't read this line, hit refresh http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif

[ November 19, 2003, 17:41: Message edited by: Saber Cherry ]

Re: Balance issue: order-luck, a no brainer?
 

I've played quite a few games in the Demo and now in the retail with Order 3, Misfortune 3. It has less impact on the game and the bad events don't make as much of a gamebreaking difference than Order/Turmoil Even , Luck 3. And even Turmoil 3, Luck 3.

By far one of the worst combinations right now is Turmoil 3, Luck 3. Even with the greater chance of good events; earthquakes, floods and rebellions sneak in very very early (Turn 10-20) and for the most part target your fotress provinces, leaving them crippled while you get a "Handful of gems" every few turns.

Maybe I'm missing something.

Re: Balance issue: order-luck, a no brainer?
 

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Let's hope you've just had bad luck ( http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif ) because that's not the way it's supposed to work, according to the official numbers... a systemic bug in the highly random luck system would be very hard to find!

Re: Balance issue: order-luck, a no brainer?
 

I have only played the demo Version. But I have to agree with Zen. Order 3 (but without any misfortune) reduces random events to a very manageable level.

And if I can reduce negative random events while getting income with my scales, I'm all for it.

Whatever the percentage chance of a random event is...let us call it X.

Order 3, misfortune 3 reduce the likelihood by 30% but increase the likelihood that it is negative to 80%. Whether that is good or bad depends on the initial likelihood of an event, which as I understand it is non-public.

If the initial likelihood is 100%....
70% chance of event, 80% negative...56% negative event. Not good.

If the initial likelihood is more like 50%,

20% chance of event, 80% negative or 16%

With even scales, 50% likelihood of event, 50% negative, would be 25%.

However, even if the initial likelihood were 100%, the 56% you would have with order 3, unluck 3 is not noticably worse than the 50% you would have with even scales.

I totally loved my game with order 3, balanced luck scales, though.

SaberCherry, can you tell me how my reasoning is invalid (if it is)?

Re: Balance issue: order-luck, a no brainer?
 

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Hmmm... yeah, that's invalid. The intital event probability based on all neutral scales is assigned a unitless 100, no matter how common events actually are. This does not mean there is a 100% chance of events, it just means that by default, we're calling the frequency of events you get with neutral scales "100" for convenience, because it makes the math work out easily. You could call it "1" or "50", but that would not change the results.

So taking Order-3 lowers your relative event probability to 70, or 70% of the probability compared to neutral scales. If you normally had a 30% chance of an event per turn with neutral scales, Order-3 would reduce the chance to 21%, NOT to 0%. Turmoil-3 would increase it to 39%, not to 60%.

If neutral scales have a relative "100" event frequency, then it also has a relative "50" good event and "50" bad event frequency. Order-3 Unluck-3 has a 100*70%=70 total relative event frequency, with a relative 70*20%=14 good event and 70*80%=56 bad event frequency.

Thus, if every (for example) 40 turns you got 100 events with a neutral scale, 50 of them should be good, and 50 bad. But with an order-3 unluck-3, you should only get 70 total events in the same time, of which 56 are bad and 14 are good.

So you get a tiny (12%) increase in bad events, a huge decrease (62%) in good events (which is OK, because they aren't as potent), and a 21% (or maybe 30%) increase in income. For free. ASSUMING all the published formulas are correct. And the income boost can be even greater if you take a good castle, growth, or productivity.

-Cherry

Re: Balance issue: order-luck, a no brainer?
 

Productivity increases gold income? I thought it just affected resources?

(Sorry if I'm asking mickey mouse questions...still don't have my game. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon9.gif )

Re: Balance issue: order-luck, a no brainer?
 

By the way, SaberCherry, thanks for pointing out that it is a "relative" rather than an "absolute" decrease in events.

I will tell you, though...it seemed to be an absolute decrease in events when I played Ctis with order 3 and balanced luck. Almost no random events.

Your formula is probably right and mine probably wrong. I didn't get an increase since I didn't take unluck. I don't really miss those handfuls of gems. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

Re: Balance issue: order-luck, a no brainer?
 

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Yes, 2% per tick.

Re: Balance issue: order-luck, a no brainer?
 

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">By assumming that the chance of events is 100% and order decreases it by 10% you have assumed that orders modifies event likelyhood by 1/10 - do we know this? Given the frequency of events when using low order races and the frequency when using high order races it seems unlikely. My experiance indicates that order +3 does a very good job of dampening down events while turmoil +3 does a good job of increasing them.

On the general question I liked how it worked in Dom I more with Misfortune increasing the chance of events to happen. Its a bit odd saying someone suffers from bad luck if it seldom happens? You suffer more bad luck with turmoil/luck races than order/misfortune races. As people have pointed out good luck can be great but bad luck can ruin you at the start - so less luck is better at present by my reckoning.

cheers

Keir

Re: Balance issue: order-luck, a no brainer?
 

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">No, but that's the official word: "Order/turmoil scales increase or decrease the quantity of random events by 10% per step." This is not an exact quote, but I believe it is accurate.

(Edit: It says so in the newby guide, so it must be true! http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif )

I made no assumptions, though, other than that the above paraphrase is true... the neutral-scale event frequency is always 100% if you regard that as your relative base http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Yeah, I think that should be the case as well. And, in fact, I suspect it may be the case, and the devs just forgot to mention it=) If so, all my numbers are wrong. But you never know=)

[ November 19, 2003, 21:40: Message edited by: Saber Cherry ]

Re: Balance issue: order-luck, a no brainer?
 

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">What????!??!!? The mod tools will be released with the first patch???????

Re: Balance issue: order-luck, a no brainer?
 

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">No, but that's the official word: "Order/turmoil scales increase or decrease the quantity of random events by 10% per step." This is not an exact quote, but I believe it is accurate.

I made no assumptions, though, other than that the above paraphrase is true... the neutral-scale event frequency is always 100% if you regard that as your relative base http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif
</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">That is your assumption Saber - thats the base line is 100% and that is what is modified +-10%. This may "seem" logical but there could be another explanation based around the +-10% being an absolute modifier on your chance that turn (modified so we hear by such things as province numbers etc) of having a random event.

I don't know the answer but your projections do not fit with my Dominions experiance - Dom I could be confusing me.

cheers

Keir

Re: Balance issue: order-luck, a no brainer?
 

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">The other problem is that good events aren't nearly as good as the bad events are bad. I have had (with luck 2) a flood and mass emigration in my home province in the first ten turns, which cumulatively lost me about 1/3 of my home province population. I've had various good events too, but 25 militia and a handful of gems doesn't really make up for losing 6000 population (10000 if you count both bad events).

Maybe some of the really bad events (like anything that causes massive population loss) should require 0 or less luck (the same way the vine men attack requires growth/magic, etc.)

As Saber pointed out on another thread, if you focus mainly on preventing bad events, order is better for this than luck (which seems wrong to me, especially since order has other benefits). And given the far larger magnitude of the bad events, it makes sense to focus on preventing them.

Either luck needs to provide a stronger bias at least against the seriously crippling events, or misfortune needs to negate the event-reducing effect of order (as it did in Dom I), or both. Or perhaps there should be some major good events - those 6000 people who emigrated from my home province had to move somewhere, right? Why doesn't a province ever randomly get 5000 immigrants?

Turmoil 3 luck 3 should get more good events and less bad events than order 3 misfortune 3 - both cost 0 points and the former has much less steady income. Currently it gets more good events, but also more bad events, which still dominate the good events and yield a net loss - on top of the steady income loss. The only reasons to even consider turmoil are special themes that require it (which is very costly at the moment), or maybe maenads.

I don't have any major problems with order/luck not working together well, although I wouldn't mind seeing positive and negative luck raise event frequency as in Dom I. I haven't tried turmoil/misfortune but I expect it would be at least as catastrophic as in Dom I (due to the generally higher frequency of crippling events in Dom II).

Re: Balance issue: order-luck, a no brainer?
 

For reference, here's how JK explained luck in Doms 1 when I asked him 2 years ago:

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana"> <font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">