Re: Thoughts on making \"luck\" equally attractive
 

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.

Re: Thoughts on making \"luck\" equally attractive
 

Simply remove the 3 event cap, or increase the number of possible events per turn.

I'd also really like to see the militia event disappear.

Re: Thoughts on making \"luck\" equally attractive
 

No one is taking luck for heroes, chance is still very small. That is just one of the reasons not to take Misfortune [though I got heroes with Misf2]. Order3 makes it even less interesting to take Luck and better to take Misf.

All the things you can get from luck are really nice, but still, Order makes them really less frequent. And that pesky even limit. That simply makes that scale not worth much later. Especially when you have order.

Re: Thoughts on making \"luck\" equally attractive
 

Maybe increase the chance of getting a hero each turn by 1.5 percent, rounded up, rather than 1 percent.

Maybe instead of just getting a chance at heroes, you would with positive luck only also get random chance at a mercenary hero, or band of mercenaries. So instead of having to bid for them against other nations, they show up at your gate, and you can accept them, pay their upkeep, or refuse them.

They could be identical to mercenaries in the game now, but have different names. and never run out.

Re: Thoughts on making \"luck\" equally attractive
 

As far as I know the 3 event limit cap is another myth... I read some people writing about getting 5 or 6 good events in a single turn regularly.

But I'd sure like an official confirmation.

Re: Thoughts on making \"luck\" equally attractive
 

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.

Re: Thoughts on making \"luck\" equally attractive
 

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 !
http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/image...ies/tongue.gif

Re: Thoughts on making \"luck\" equally attractive
 

Kasnavada,

You're being silly. I haven't made any positive claims<font color="red">[1]</font> 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: <font color="red">[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.
</font>

Re: Thoughts on making \"luck\" equally attractive
 

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

Whatever, believe what you want.

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

Re: Thoughts on making \"luck\" equally attractive
 

Okay, then in that case I do have to support the claim about luck not scaling. I'll do so later this week.

-Max