Luck and Attack

[danhvo]

Has anyone noticed that, without considering any abilities associated with these skills, Luck is vastly superior to Attack? Each level of Luck adds, on average, 10% to melee AND range damage (i.e. Expert Luck = +30%), whereas each level of Attack adds only 5% to melee damage. True, Luck will be useless if you happen to be in the Week of Balance, but that's pretty rare.

Can anyone convince me why I should pick Attack over Luck?

[Ya5MieL]

Difference is, you cant always count on luck, so with attack you can make more precise decisions. Also, imho attack perks are much better than luck ones. Many times luck tuns out to be an overkill since you would have killed the stack nevertheless.

With all that in mind, luck is considered to be stronger on itself but its not that drastic as it might seem.

[ThunderTitan]

As said before Luck is too random to really assign an average dmg per hit... especially since it can easily be wasted.

[tb5841]

I agree, Luck is a far better skill. But certain abilities (eg. Tactics) are essential for certain strategies. And these skills work brilliantly together, I usually find that I choose both or neither.

[Tensho]

Wtf?Luck doesnt give dmg!
Each point of luck gives a 10% chance for your unit to make double dmg!
And the max is capped to 50%.With elven luck you can make 225% dmg than normal(+25%)
But since the max is capped,you always have a 50% of making double dmg.
Which is sick...
And attack gives +15% melee dmg.But its always certain.

[Alamar]

I tend to agree that Luck, Leadership, Attack, and Defense didn't feel properly balanced against each other per-se even when you took the randomness into account.

Hopefully H6 will fare better here.

[danhvo]

As said before Luck is too random to really assign an average dmg per hit... especially since it can easily be wasted.

I'm not sure what you mean by "wasted". Do you mean it can easily go over 5? That might be true, but by the time I get a lot of Luck-boosting artifacts, I also find a lot of other artifacts that I can equip instead.

Luck is, by definition, random, which is why we use the word "average". And yes, the average can be easily computed. The law of probability says that in the long run, this average should hold.

In practice, in single play, if you play like me, luck would tilt even more in your favor. I, for example, would replay a difficult battle to find the most favorable sequence (i.e. one where luck would trigger the most or at the important time). Sometimes, if I have even just a point or two in Luck, I would attack a bigger neutral army anyway, just to see if I might get lucky; if not, reload and move on.

[Mirez]

I think he means that you can get your luck decreased aswell so attack is more reliable

[konfeta]

What he means is damage overflow. You don't want to risk having success of the battle on a dice when you can guarantee it methodically. Luck is pretty often wasted here, like having your Paladins charge a nasty to wipe it out in one hit, and BAM! LUCK! WOOPTIE DOO, HE WAS DEAD ANYWAY!

Yes, luck can and does win fights easily. But if you base your entire strategy on getting good luck rolls at right time, you will get screwed over the second the coin flips the other way.

When you seek to minimize the damage done by your enemy, you go for the sure kill, not "If I get lucky, I will kill that. If not, good bye half my army". You might be able to wipe out those Seraphim in one hit. But if you don't, you will pay for it through their retaliation and those couple hundred Marksmen you coulda have killed instead.

[ThunderTitan]

Luck is, by definition, random, which is why we use the word "average". And yes, the average can be easily computed. The law of probability says that in the long run, this average should hold.

Ah... mathematical certainty... reminds me of the physics we're taught in school... you know, where everything is assumed to be perfect, when in RL that would be an anomaly.

Remember that "over time" assumes infinity, when used in a limited time scale, while still a more useful tool then going at it willy-nilly it guarantees nothing. Roll a 2-sided dice 100 times and it could fall on the same side every time even if the chances are 50-50 for each roll.

[PhoenixReborn]

Well since this is all theory I might as well throw in a possibility.

Why you would take attack instead of luck? Because you can have both without taking the luck skill. Why waste level ups when a visit to a fountain plus an artifact can give you a luck of 3 or 4?

[blizzardboy]

Luck is capped out at 5. Modifiers to increase your attack are infinite. If you are preparing for the final confrontation with the enemy hero, you're going to be stopping at all the nearby one-time boost spots; and fountains of fortune/idols of fortune/etc. are common on any map, especially near towns.

Although if you follow the law of averages, luck gives +10% to both melee and ranged per level (making it superior to attack), you can't control when you will get that luck bonus. Luck might trigger when you are making that crucial shot against your enemy's ranged or caster stack, or you might get it when attacking a summoned unit, or attacking with one of your weak stacks, or attacking an almost dead stack- making it unnecessary overkill. With attack, it is all already factored in, and you can see the number of units you will kill when making an attack. Luck is far more likely to be wasteful, whereas attack isn't. Any general will tell you that the goal of planning is to minimize the number of variables in a situation.

I believe the two are balanced- and I'm partial to attack because I want that control even though luck has greater raw potential.

[blizzardboy]

I'm not sure what you mean by "wasted". Do you mean it can easily go over 5? That might be true, but by the time I get a lot of Luck-boosting artifacts, I also find a lot of other artifacts that I can equip instead.

Luck is, by definition, random, which is why we use the word "average". And yes, the average can be easily computed. The law of probability says that in the long run, this average should hold.

You're looking at it too simplistically.

Yes, by the indisputable laws of math, luck is going to distribute more damage on the battlefield than attack is. I understand this. However, with luck, you cannot control where that extra damage is going to be distributed. With attack, though the benefits are less, you have 100% control where your damage is going to be distributed. It's a question of control versus raw numerical power.

[Macros the Black]

Might as well add my own two cents.
I agree with the people who are saying that Luck and Attack are balanced. Luck may have more damage potential, but alot of it gets wasted because you don't usually attack a stack with your unit unless you know that you can decrease the stack's numbers enough so that the relation won't hurt you too much.
Of course, this fact is less important if your army counts heavily on it's vampires or blood maidens. But even then, you will likely attack the stack which you can damage the most, and then, when luck triggers it doesn't help much because the stack wasn't going to be important anymore (or you were gonna totally kill the stack) anyway.
The usefulness of Luck also depends on the map you play. Which artifacts can you find, how many idols of fortune are scattered around the place, can you build your highest creatures (luck is more useful in maps where you can only build lower tier creatures, imo).
And another thing to add is that Light Magic, in combination with the right creatures, can add more damage to your army than Luck or Attack in some situations. And let's not forget War Machines.
In any case, usually it's important that you take both or neither because they compliment each other so well.

A more interesting discussion, imo, would be Luck versus Morale. I've always wondered which is more useful..

[blizzardboy]

Might as well add my own two cents.
I agree with the people who are saying that Luck and Attack are balanced. Luck may have more damage potential, but alot of it gets wasted because you don't usually attack a stack with your unit unless you know that you can decrease the stack's numbers enough so that the relation won't hurt you too much.
Of course, this fact is less important if your army counts heavily on it's vampires or blood maidens. But even then, you will likely attack the stack which you can damage the most, and then, when luck triggers it doesn't help much because the stack wasn't going to be important anymore (or you were gonna totally kill the stack) anyway.
The usefulness of Luck also depends on the map you play. Which artifacts can you find, how many idols of fortune are scattered around the place, can you build your highest creatures (luck is more useful in maps where you can only build lower tier creatures, imo).
And another thing to add is that Light Magic, in combination with the right creatures, can add more damage to your army than Luck or Attack in some situations. And let's not forget War Machines.
In any case, usually it's important that you take both or neither because they compliment each other so well.

A more interesting discussion, imo, would be Luck versus Morale. I've always wondered which is more useful..

Technically, luck, attack, and leadership all compliment each other. The more turns you take because of morale means the more extra damage you're going to be doing from attack, or the more lucky attacks you're going to have. But it's pricey to have attack, defense, and luck. That leaves only 2 skills left, and 1 of them is going to go to logistics unless you're weird.

I like leadership more than luck. Although morale has an element of randomness in it as well, you have more control than you do with luck. With leadership, it's a quicker turn. You can do with that turn whatever you want. You can defend, you can wait, you can cast, you can attack, you can do whatever. It's more tactical power to you.
The problem is, leaderships three basic skills: recruitment, estates, and diplomacy aren't very popular for your main hero. Although the more advanced skills are usually very good, it often feels like you're wasting a skill slot in order to get to them.

[travelingoz]

I tend to agree with most of the posters that luck is just too random. The number of times that i've had a few zombies defending my skellies and the luck triggers on the zombies retaliation instead of the archers just makes me cry!

Save the slot for another skill unless your playing sylvan or you want the resources bonus for a second hero.

[parcaleste]

Yes, you have a point with attacking a certain stack, but don't you forget something like shooters? Or sacrificing a small stack, just so to some enemy's juggernaut to lose it's retaliation ability? For me it's the same "planning" as with attacks "small portions"... even thought it will save you turn or two if it trigger...

[Tress]

Even if luck gives less owerall bonus(havnt calculated yet). you cant ever realy on it while with attack skill you can exactly(even more with divine strenght) predict way battle will go. For example you have stack of dragons and you attack pit lords and see that one will remain. that will mean they will retaliate and with vorpal sword will kill 1. Luck migh proc and take all stack down but you cant realy on it while attack might give that extra. Situation is quite specific but idea remains same and it is more or less actual in any situation. Also you can cap luck with artifacts and fontains, so i dont consider attack skill worse than luck(at least much worse).

[ThunderTitan]

attacking with one of your weak stacks,

I'm pretty sure it's applied for each stack separately...

[konfeta]

You shouldn't really look at the primary skills when comparing luck and attack. Look at what they give in perks -

Warlock's Luck
Soldier's Luck
Elven Luck

Retribution
Flaming Arrows
Tactics

etc.

Luck as a primary skill is mostly replaceable by artifacts and map boosts. Attack, while less damage output, is not replaceable. I think they are more or less equally useful until you start looking into perks, then it's faction dependant.