Return to Answer

##What does Luck mean?

##How do you calculate with Luck?

• What kind of scaling do you want? In many games, stats use diminishing returns (grows fast at the beginning at then slows down) - this can make the game more balanced or easier to balance, as the stat bonuses are impactful at first, but don't get out of control.

Note that some linear increases may already give you diminishing returns - e.g. if your chance to hit increases from 25% to 50%, that's a 100% damage increase (you're hitting twice as often), but from 50% to 75% would only be a 50% damage increase. If you want to use a linear increase and the stat is unbounded, you'll need to figure out what will happen when you get to 100%.

• What's the maximum value for the stat? Is there a maximum?
• How much of a bonus would it provide at any point, especially compared to the same investment into other stats?

You may want to strive to have any given point provide a comparable benefit no matter which stat you throw it into at which point (with different stats changing your playstyle), or you could have some be significantly better (not one stat as a whole be better than another, but rather the m-th point of one be better than the n-th point of another), to allow for some min-maxing.

##Should you include Luck?

What does Luck mean?

How do you calculate with Luck?

• What kind of scaling do you want? In many games, stats use diminishing returns (grows fast at the beginning at then slows down) - this can make the game more balanced or easier to balance, as the stat bonuses are impactful at first, but don't get out of control.

  Note that some linear increases may already give you diminishing returns - e.g. if your chance to hit increases from 25% to 50%, that's a 100% damage increase (you're hitting twice as often), but from 50% to 75% would only be a 50% damage increase. If you want to use a linear increase and the stat is unbounded, you'll need to figure out what will happen when you get to 100%.

• What's the maximum value for the stat? Is there a maximum?

• How much of a bonus would it provide at any point, especially compared to the same investment into other stats?

  You may want to strive to have any given point provide a comparable benefit no matter which stat you throw it into at which point (with different stats changing your playstyle), or you could have some be significantly better (not one stat as a whole be better than another, but rather the m-th point of one be better than the n-th point of another), to allow for some min-maxing.

Should you include Luck?

You might not want to strive to have each possible set of point allocations be equally powerful, because you might want to allow some min-maxing (alternatively the stats could just be different enough that this gives you different playstyles). But it's definitely something to keep in mind when deciding what each point in a stat should mean.

• Adds to the perceived complexity of the game by giving the player more things to put points into, which may be good or bad (this can be good if players can run out of others things to put points into, but this can be addressed in other ways)
• Can make the game harder to balance, unless Luck is mostly useless, in which case you should probably just remove it
• Can be hard for players to see the effects of, making players feel like getting more of it is a waste
• Probably wouldn't clearly and quantifiably explain what it does, making players less likely to want to invest in it

You may want to strive to have any given point provide a comparable benefit no matter which stat you throw it into at which point (with different stats changing your playstyle), or you could have some be significantly better (not one stat as a whole be better than another, but rather the m-th point of one be better than the n-th point of another), to allow for some min-maxing.

• Adds to the perceived complexity of the game by giving the player more things to put points into, which may be good or bad (this can be good if players can run out of others things to put points into, but this can be addressed in other ways)
• Can make the game harder to balance, unless Luck is mostly useless, in which case you should probably just remove it
• Can be hard for players to see the effects of, making players feel like getting more of it is a waste
• Probably wouldn't clearly and quantifiably explain what it does, making players less likely to want to invest in it
• Generally doesn't really affect a player's playstyle. As mentioned above, different stats could be used to allow the player to change their playstyle, but having one stat just sort of helping all over and not really have a clear focus goes against this.

##Should you include Luck?

You might not want to strive to have each possible set of point allocations be equally powerful, because you might want to allow some min-maxing (alternatively the stats could just be different enough that this gives you different playstyles). But it's definitely something to keep in mind when deciding what each point in a stat should mean.

##Should you include Luck?