Luck/Turmoil versus Nothing.

[Squirrelloid]

Except there are substantial problems with it checking for each event on a non-province-by-province basis. Namely, no obvious way you accrue more events as #provinces increases, and no way to factor in local scales. So i'm not sure your (a) is anywhere near certain - indeed, it would seem the evidence suggests against it.

Now, actual P(event) could actually be P(event|#provinces), as a decreasing function with respect to provinces. This seems a rather complicated model given what we know of JK's coding style, however. (I mean, the game uses a distance metric near manhattan metric because calculating real distance was too much processor power per calculation - clearly simple was better as far as JK was concerned). But we don't *know* unless someone wants to do some code-diving.

Until we determine a plausible mechanism for generating events, can we restrict ourselves to totally neutral dominion? Lets not complicate things before we have a good basic model to work with.

[Finalgenesis]

I thought it might be pretty simple to code in #province affecting event even if you're doing a non-province-by-province basis. something like the example I used 2 post back (I didn't put the example in the "clarified" post you read so you probably missed it):
event=10%+(20%*(x-1/x)) where x is province you have
to demonstrate a dimishing effect as thejeff's data might suggest. so 1 province = 4x 10% check, 2 provinces = 4x 20% check, 3 province = 4x 27% check ...etc with this random non-realistic example (it's a pretty inelegant sample formula), except there is obviously more factors in the formula then is present in this example, in order to account for anomalies for Jeff's results.

I agree though that nothing short of code diving is going to give us anything concrete to work with, so it's an excercise in futility at the end.

[Squirrelloid]

Oh, we can totally figure this out, or at least propose models consistent with data. But for that we need data!

[chrispedersen]

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...

[Squirrelloid]

Originally Posted by chrispedersen

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).

[chrispedersen]

ok; With 50 turns, 0 luck 0 luck -3 +3 4 territories
22, 27, 54, and 46 luck events

With 8 territories same scales
24 24 64 55 luck events.


A few observational data.

1. With over 100 turns run - there were never any turns with
ZERO luck events (after turn 1).
2. I watched various emigration events where pop was lost.
There were never any pop gains the same turn.
3. Four events occured to one nation once in both sample sizes.


Number distribution
With 4 territories
0,1,2,3,4
33,11,4,1
26,19.4
15.17.11.5.1
19,18,7,5



With 8 territories,
0 1 2 3 4
28,19,3,0
29,18,3,0
10,16,29,3,1
11,24,13,2

[Finalgenesis]

Originally Posted by thejeff

I also have a hazy memory of one of the developers saying that events were driven by the capital scales, but I wasn't able to find the post again. It was a long time ago.

Originally Posted by Squirrelloid

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.

I think that it's not too impropable that the luck/turmoil effect on event frequency could be one of those things where either the capital or your pretender scale is used in the event generation formula rather then province-by-province check. This was something I forgot to put in my "clarified post"

[thejeff]

In my test, I didn't start with full dominion, so there is likely some lag, but did have dom10 and had used the map file to put a temple in every province, so it spread fast.

I can run more turns tonight. I was originally looking for province clustering not just numbers, so I had to actually check each event. Just getting the number of events will be faster.

[chrispedersen]

Looking at the data I generated, with 50 turns run on a size 4 empire and 50 turns run on a size 8 empire.

With neutral scales, the number of events did not scale between the empire size.

You have the same number of events happening on a size 4 nation, vs a size 8 nation.

Second, I believe the reasons the number of luck events increased so drastically (but not evenly) for +/- luck is because the luck scale increased the number of eligible events in their provinces.

I don't believe its a question of IF a luck event occurs, pick a random event in this territory.

I think its, IF a luck event occurs, check to see if each eligible event in a province occurs.


So, if as I believe there are up to four luck events, and each one has a check to see if it occurs - the actual chance of having an event =4* P(E)*P(EventinProvince)

So changing luck not only increases p(e) it also increases P(eip). This is the only way I can see to account for the doubling of events, and also the consistency that -luck increased the number events more than + luck. While they both may have increased the p(e), the increased the P(eip) unevenly due to the more possible unluck events than luck events.


Second, the same provinces were hit turn after turn with the same events.

Third, some events get turned on on certain turn progressions, 7,10,35, this has a slight dampening on the number of events per turn I posit in the early turns.

However, in the 4 lands test 34 events happened in the first 10 turns, 39 events occured in the last 10 turns.

In the 8 nation test, 34 events happened in the first 10 turn, 43happened in the last 10 turns.

[Finalgenesis]

Could there also be a cap on number of province affecting event generation frequency? After all, with only 1 province, you definitely see less then 34 events in 10 turns (from play observation not actual testing). Perhaps once you hit 10-20 provinces, any additional provinces no longer impact your event frequency.