by thinkbomb
worm4life wrote:
On paper, it is slightly in your favor, as Jason M wrote out.
In practice? It is only slightly in your favor if:
-The standard reward you would get isn't that important.
-Every possible die reward is worth it.
-You are not taking the enhanced spending spirit reward.
Only if ALL THREE of those are true, is it statistically worth it to roll. If you're the potion hunter or warlord, you're probably drowning in warriors/potions and those extra aren't worth it for you, so with even one bonus haggle reward being "meh", rolling the die isn't worth it. Taking the enhanced spirit reward would also "double" the loss of a bad roll, so it's not worth it. Conversely, if the warlord lands on a village or the potion hunter lands on a bazaar, then sure roll it because a negative roll is less of a loss.
In practice? It is only slightly in your favor if:
-The standard reward you would get isn't that important.
-Every possible die reward is worth it.
-You are not taking the enhanced spending spirit reward.
Only if ALL THREE of those are true, is it statistically worth it to roll. If you're the potion hunter or warlord, you're probably drowning in warriors/potions and those extra aren't worth it for you, so with even one bonus haggle reward being "meh", rolling the die isn't worth it. Taking the enhanced spirit reward would also "double" the loss of a bad roll, so it's not worth it. Conversely, if the warlord lands on a village or the potion hunter lands on a bazaar, then sure roll it because a negative roll is less of a loss.
"Wars are not fought on spreadsheets. There are very human, political, and strategic components that go far beyond the grim numbers."
I just mention this adage since Math can help you understand the situation, but it really isn't the end of the story (and can frequently be the downfall)
Something I've noticed with the game is that the failure state is not the result of a slow decline. In all the games I've lost, it's been more of cliff-dive where it's fine the first couple rounds, tense the rest of the game, then suddenly half your buildings are destroyed and everyone has 2 corruptions. From a gamer's perspective it reinfoces the concept that "you have to make every turn count since you won't have much forewarning."
...
It's that context to where the majority of people come here and say "is the die even worth it" to be met with "well, actually, statistics..." and then the bitter grumbling because "you can't argue with math!"
So back to why I quoted this forum post entry. Those 3 bullet points ... here's my analysis of (my experience) how often each point is true.
1) If the standard reward isn't that important, this is usually the result of "the main objective of this turn is to complete a quest", 2x per month affairs if solo, maybe 1 per month multiplayer.
2) Generally speaking, every beneficial die result isn't worth it
2a) Gears are NICE, but most of the time they are conveniences (aside from the map, there's usually only 2 per game permutation that are relevant) ... which makes it the best of the 3?
2b) Potion effects are far too random to be something you can strategize on
2c) getting 3 warriors are like a fart in the wind. it might be noticed, but it certainly won't help when adversaries typically take off 25 warriors unmodified
3 Then there's the advanced Reinforce Action ... which we generally find we're taking at least half the time.
... so yeah, I think that using that 3-questions rule ... it may only be 1-2x per game where you can confidently say "I'm ok with losing an action, and the benefit would help me!" ... making the haggle die a useless cube a plastic.
While I do think there could definitely be more finesse than just "pay 1 extra spirit if you get the grump", it gets the job done. Thanks for that suggestion.