Quote:
Originally Posted by chrispedersen
Quote:
Originally Posted by Squirrelloid
assuming independent province by province checks with neutral scales, a 300 province territory should have a .9^300 chance for each event not happening, which as you might imagine is vanishingly small. (10^-14)
Ok, so we need a new model. Chris's model doesn't have any effect for empire size, so that clearly isn't right.
thejeff, is that data listing provinces in the order the events happened?
|
I still don't get the criticism.
I'm suggesting first determine how many provinces get event checks. Then run each event check through a provinces event mask.
But I'll do some tests... |
Ok, two things:
First, as thejeff pointed out, if you determine #events before you look province-by-province, then province scales have no effect on how likely an event is. Yet they clearly claim to do so.
Second, my point was if you generate #events first, you ignore #provinces. Yet there's certainly the perception that larger empires have more events (we need real data to actually confirm, but it does meet my anecdotal experience). At which point, generating #events first doesn't account for increasing average # of events based on number of provinces owned that doesn't result in obvious asymptotes or the like at some point. (And remember, JK's known algorithm work has already rejected x^2+y^2=z^2 as too complicated).
Re: Luck/Turmoil versus Nothing.
Threaded Mode