|
|
|
 |

November 26th, 2003, 12:57 PM
|
BANNED USER
|
|
Join Date: Oct 2003
Posts: 194
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
|
|
Re: Petition to change LUCK\\ORDER Scales
I would like to see the Disasters toned down a bit for every level of Luck you have.
Sammual
|

November 26th, 2003, 04:32 PM
|
|
Re: Petition to change LUCK\\ORDER Scales
Quote:
Originally posted by Pocus:
how many provinces did you control for the tests? I think you should own at least 10 so to get the max number of possibles events coming. This can change the whole thing if you get 150 events in 75 turns compared to one a turn roughly (but 20% will be bad anyway - which is too much)
|
I was playing hotseat, only Ulm vs Pythium (to avoid heat/cold effects). I opened only the Ulm turns, so Pythium was totally passive. No spells, no fake disasters...
The test was based on 10 provinces indeed (turn 1 = capital, turn 2 = 4 provinces, turn 3 = 8 provinces, turn 4 = 10 provinces). I've *never* seen more than 2 events/t. BTW.
Dominion was 10 candles to maximize its influence.
By "disaster" I mean big pop loss, no knights, no revolt, not event hailstorms.
To be perfect (I realized too late) I should have made a scenario to remove all magic sites. It is not impossible that one of the test was distorted by a Doom Cloud or something like that...
Could someone confirm/invalidate my tests ?
Cheers
|

November 26th, 2003, 09:54 PM
|
|
Re: Petition to change LUCK\\ORDER Scales
Quote:
Originally posted by Saber Cherry:
If you are up for more tests, I'd suggest Order 0 & Luck +3, and Order 0 & Luck -3, to see if the base event frequency changes. I'd do it but I'm lazy.
|
Did it:
Order 0 and Luck +3 = 43 events / 80 turns, 9 bad (1 flood) and 34 good events (1500 gold event among others).
Order +3 and Luck 0 = 8 events / 80 turns, 3 bad (still 1 flood !) and 5 good (1 hero even with luck 0).
Any thought ?
|

November 26th, 2003, 10:08 PM
|
|
Re: Petition to change LUCK\\ORDER Scales
The #'s are within the formula's we were given; which is nice to know. It is just the fact of the good events weighing in less than the bad events.
I don't mind 20% Loss of Population event if on the good side I could get a 10% increase.
|

November 26th, 2003, 10:16 PM
|
|
Re: Petition to change LUCK\\ORDER Scales
Did one Last test, as suggested :
Order O and Luck -3 = 39 events / 82 turns, 28 bad events (6 disasters) and still 11 good events.
|

November 26th, 2003, 10:25 PM
|
 |
Second Lieutenant
|
|
Join Date: Sep 2003
Posts: 566
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
|
|
Re: Petition to change LUCK\\ORDER Scales
Hmmm. Order 0 and luck +3. Nearly 4 times as many good events as bad, 1 disaster and one joyous windfall...
Seems viable to me. The 21% less gold on a turn to turn basis will be somewhat painful, but I'd guess largely compensated by the good events. Perhaps there's hope for me in that MP game after all...
|

November 26th, 2003, 11:27 PM
|
Corporal
|
|
Join Date: Sep 2003
Posts: 62
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
|
|
Re: Petition to change LUCK\\ORDER Scales
One of the best things of the luck scale is the chance of getting mines. If you start in a mountain or get some mountain terrain quick, chances are good you'll start to discover new mines pretty quick. In one game I found three in my home province in 20 turns.
|
Posting Rules
|
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
HTML code is On
|
|
|
|
|