Thoughts on making "luck" equally attractive

[kasnavada]

Here is where a test shows that order 3 isn't better that luck / turmoil. And that there is no need to boost luck at all.

The reason why everyone and his dog takes order 3 is because the game is more predictable that way. I has nothing to do with the benefits it really gives...

Chek post #584132.
http://www.shrapnelcommunity.com/threads/showflat.php?Cat=&Number=582740

[MaxWilson]

The link above is broken for me. A correction:

http://www.shrapnelcommunity.com/thr...&Number=582740

Copying & pasting the URL from your browser only works for someone who has the same view settings as you. Use the "Post Link" instead of manually trim the URL.

I'm skeptical of the test anyway. 9 provinces isn't exactly a representative empire. Do it with 40 provinces and I'll start to pay attention.

-Max

[kasnavada]

I'm skeptical of the test anyway. 9 provinces isn't exactly a representative empire. Do it with 40 provinces and I'll start to pay attention.

That's what usually happen when someone proves some other wrong. They say "your test suck, because of 'insert stupid condition here'". Then they ask others to do the test again.

Do that 40 province test yourself and then I'll start to pay attention, until then my test stands, for lack of a better proof ? or because it's true.

Thanks for the link though.

[Hadrian_II]

kasnavada said:

That's what usually happen when someone proves some other wrong. They say "your test suck, because of 'insert stupid condition here'". Then they ask others to do the test again.

Do that 40 province test yourself and then I'll start to pay attention, until then my test stands, for lack of a better proof ? or because it's true.

Thanks for the link though.

Order gives you +21% income in every province, luck will max out on 4 events, so luck looses usefulness on bigger empires.

I personally think that the simplest way to balance luck would be to remove the event limit, or make the limit depending on province count, so that bigger empires may get more events.

[MaxWilson]

kasnavada said:
That's what usually happen when someone proves some other wrong. They say "your test suck, because of 'insert stupid condition here'". Then they ask others to do the test again.

Do that 40 province test yourself and then I'll start to pay attention, until then my test stands, for lack of a better proof ? or because it's true.

Whoa there, calm down. I'm sorry if my tone was unwarrantedly hostile. Luck is known to not scale with empire size. A test which uses a very small empire is not going to give representative results and doesn't prove anything even in an empirical sense about the game mechanics.

-Max

P.S. I'm not sure if I believe in the 3 event cap, but it seems low to me. I'm pretty sure I've seen up to 4 or 5 events on some turns.

[kasnavada]

Then when do you run that 40 province test ?

Until then it proves that with a low amount of provinces the amount of benefits is about the same. Which means that taking order 3 isn't a "best choice".

EDIT : not that it matters lol, boost luck anyway !

[MaxWilson]

Kasnavada,

You're being silly. I haven't made any positive claims[1] and therefore don't require empirical tests to support them. You're being overly sensitive about criticism.

All the same, I've contemplated running a larger test because so many people have done the smaller one and it would be nice to have data on a more representative sample. It's possible that you may have annoyed me into doing so later on this week.

-Max

Edit: [1] Except that "Luck is known to not scale with empire size." If you're disputing that claim, say so and I'll be required to provide evidence. But I think you already know that that claim is true.

P.S. I agree that your test proves that small empires benefit more from Luck than Order.

[kasnavada]

Well, the exact same can be told about your comments ! Silly and all...

Whatever, believe what you want.

"Luck is known to not scale with empire size."

That's a point I don't know about, actually. So many people speak about a 3 event limit and some speak about 6...

[Ironhawk]

kasnavada said:
Then when do you run that 40 province test ?

Because there is no need to run a test? There is a cap to events - be it 3 or 5 or 6... it doesnt matter. Whatever it is, at some point Luck stops scaling as your empire grows. Order never does.

Additionally, as the person challenging convention I think the burden of proof is on you, kasnavada.

[Xietor]

To be civil, I would like to say kas has a point that order is predictable, and many take the scale to get a predictable income.

That said, and with no empirical proof other than having played wayyyyyyyyy too many dominions games for years now, there is a hard cap on the luck events. That is based on experience. So I can offer no piece of code or any scientific
test.

But Kas is also correct in that you can exceed the cap at times, but not consistently. If you capture provinces, you sometimes get events that the other player would have received, resulting in an extra 1 or 2 events depending on how your war is going.

Of course you can get many many "bad" events per turn if your enemy is spamming spells on your provinces. But the lucky events are capped, and the number i believe the cap to be is 4. So on a 300 province map, if you own 50 provinces, 4/50 is not as good as when you owned fewer provinces.

Accepting the cap as a reality, and for the sake of avoiding argument, let us please get the thread back on track. For those who forgot what it is about, read the 1st post.

In particular, any thoughts about adding a luck event where mercenaries show up at your gate?