Re: It\'d make a reasonable game configuration opti
 

Have you already had a true disaster on your capitol in the very first turns in a mp game, like losing half your capitol population, or having it invaded by a vampire count or bogus in turn 2, etc.. ?

Note that Luck/Misfortune has nothing to do with it as misfortune is no longer a condition for the worst events (unlike in dom2 I think), but some of them may make you lose a game no matter how your gameplay is.

Re: It\'d make a reasonable game configuration opti
 

I wouldnt say that blaming a bad event is just poor gameplay. But the possibility of disastrous events and having to play around it is a strong element in Solo play. I wouldnt want to see it nerfed.

On the other hand, I can see that the dedicated Multi-Player people might really hate it. They want the winner to be able to say that they won by superior strategy.

So I would be more behind the idea of spreading out the command options for a game so that instead of just rare or common, we could have a range of something like 0-5 (nothing to insane). That way the MPers can have challenge ladders that run at 0, and I can have chaos-map games that run at 5.

Its a common suggestion to any developer of any game. "Please Mr Programmer. Can we have something below your most extreme logical setting, and above your most insane choice? Because no matter what you feel is a who-would-want-it setting, I can gaurantee that someone will request it."

Re: It\'d make a reasonable game configuration opti
 

And that's all I want, Gandalf. More options.

Re: It\'d make a reasonable game configuration opti
 

When you effect the frequency of random events it also effects the value of the luck/misfortune scale.

Ideally, changing the frequency of random events would also change the frequency of events in such a way that the scale is always equally valuable in design points.

Re: It\'d make a reasonable game configuration opti
 

Yes, but the ability to restrict random events is already in the game, so this is nothing new.

Re: It\'d make a reasonable game configuration opti
 

Its in the game but not enough. Obviously not restrictive enough for some in this thread, and not wild enough for me. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/happy.gif

Re: It\'d make a reasonable game configuration opti
 

Got to admit I have'nt... http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/happy.gif

No vampire counts, bogus, 1/2 population in the first few turns...must be naturally lucky!

Re: It\'d make a reasonable game configuration opti
 

Well, there you go. Next time we go to the Dominions 3 convention in Vegas, I'm hanging out with Meglobob.

Re: It\'d make a reasonable game configuration opti
 

Barbarian horde or Vampire Counts on the second, third or fourth turn is a game breaker. Bogus in the home province essentially anytime in the first 20 turns likewise. Those are the only ones I'd restrict for maybe the first five turns but no more.

Getting your lab or your temple burned down on the second turn is not a game breaker. It's an inconvenience and a setback, but not a game breaker. If you got your lab burned down on turn 2 and hadn't recruited a mage on the first turn: boo-hoo cry me a river, you screwed up, you live with it. Or restart as it may be.

I like the luck/misfortune mechanics as they are right now.

It seems to me that a fairly large number of complaints about the luck/misfortune issue, much as with the old age issue, come from people who want to use Death 3 and Misfortune 3 scales without actually suffering from the consequences of that decision.

Edi

Re: It\'d make a reasonable game configuration opti
 

High misfortune is no longer a condition for the worst events. The dom3 system favors misfortune 3 more than misfortune 0 as no matter your misfortune you may be screwed by an extreme random thing in the very first turns.

If you want to discourage players to use misfortune, plagues, ancient presence, Bogus, etc... should have misfortune x as a condition.

Re: It\'d make a reasonable game configuration opti
 

Ahh, that makes a lot of the arguments more sensible then. They should be tied to misfortune + other scale the way they were in Dom2.

Edi

Re: It\'d make a reasonable game configuration opti
 

Yes, but it happens more often. I remember my tests with order3 / misf2, at a certain point of the game, i had indie attacks most of the turns, even with the highest order.

But you're right, yesterday, I made a test with luck3 - OK, and turmoil3 - , I had a plague in my capitol in the first 5 turns. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/frown.gif

When It happens on SP, you can just restart, but on a multiplayer game, when it happens on first turn, the game is screwed just when it begins. Got it on our game "CyberGlory", and I had no terrible scales - order 1, growth1, misf 1. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/frown.gif

Re: It\'d make a reasonable game configuration opti
 

As my gamemates Olive and Twan said, the events really require a reveiw to have them more tied to Luck/Misf levels, pbem games are now often screwed for some players by big nasty events right from turn 2.
I really don't understand why that has been changed from Dom2, it doesn't make Luck more useful, it just makes the game more random.

Re: It\'d make a reasonable game configuration opti
 

I'm not sure that it's that catastrophic. In SP game it's not a big deal. In MP game it's tough, but I've recently got 4 bad events in a row (turns 3 to 6) that brought unrest in my capital above 100 (and destroyed my income as well, of course). Then I got involved into war with 2 nations at the same time. To top it I've started with a wrong plan and wrong pretender. The key point of the game was my mistake in scripting when sieging one opponents castle. Not sure what would happen if I didn't make mistakes myself, but I wasn't clearly out of the game after the bad start. So I don't think that any kind of bad events necessarily mean that you're out of the game.

Re: It\'d make a reasonable game configuration opti
 

Given that scenario I have to question either the quality of your opponents or the quality of the respective nations...I don't care how good you are, no one should be able to take 2 opponents on at once after cripplingly bad events, especially with a self-inflicted poor strategy.

Re: It\'d make a reasonable game configuration opti
 

I just started playing a game with Abyssia, and I was going to start with 0 Luck, and I realized that I couldn't safely start the game with less than 1 luck without risking a major disaster-the last game I played my Prophet was cursed in turn 7 AS I was in the process of Prophetizing him, and no misfortune, but I still don't think the witch's curse is a catastrophic event, unless she nails your SC Pretender, which would be rare.

Anyway, any time a relatively experienced, didn't-just-buy-the-game-yesterday, player can't validly decide to choose a given scale of 0 as part of a strategy, it means something is unbalanced. At this point, I would never, ever take any level of misfortune.

Scales, by their very definition, are tools of balance.

Re: It\'d make a reasonable game configuration opti
 

Ok, luck 1, turn 2, Abyssia: plague strikes, cutting my pop by 1/5 and costing me 200 gold.

Re: It\'d make a reasonable game configuration opti
 

What's broken is that now Luck doesn't seem to prevent major disastrous events - you just have less chance of getting them...
I don't think Curse event has much importance anyway (even on a Prophet or Pretender), but plagues, earthquakes and so on have.

Re: It\'d make a reasonable game configuration opti
 

Curse on an SC pretender early seems like a major setback, as he'll rack up afflictions from doing his thing...I don't see the problem with a cursed prophet though, I tend to keep mine in the back happily smiting and blessing things, with no serious chance of injury, and thus no chance of an affliction.

Re: It\'d make a reasonable game configuration opti
 

Yeah, even the 1/5th pop event, if it only happens once, not every turn or so (which does happen), wouldn't be a big deal. And I do consider a cursed Prophet to be just pure bad luck and not the scales at fault. The point is that major catastrophies do happen and Luck doesn't seem to help you.

Re: It\'d make a reasonable game configuration opti
 

Well, I think the issue is not so much with the "dude, that sucks!" events such as a cursed pretender, temple or lab burning down, or several turns of unrest in your capitol. Its more with the things that there is no way to prevent, no way to mitigate, and pretty much make it impossible to come back from. Its just a random roll of the die and you're out of the game regardless of anything you could have possibly done even if you knew it was coming. Strong indy's attacking (Bogus!), and big population killing events are about the only things I can think of that fit that category for me. Everything else fits more into the flavor category- sure it may make the difference in a very competitive game but that's always gonna be the case if you have any radom events at all.

On the luck side of the scale, I don't really see the same issue. There are no events that if you get them, basically ensure you a victory. It's not even close to the impact that one of the catostrophic events will have early in the game- Game Over Dude!

Re: It\'d make a reasonable game configuration opti
 

That's why I'd like to see it delayed a few years, because we're talking things that depend on the strategy you're attempting-if you're LA Ermor and all your pop dies, 100% in the first year, not a really big deal.

If Bogus attacks a province with really strong PD like Abyssia, you've got a good chance of repelling him, same thing with vampire counts.

I wouldn't want those events removed from the game by any means, but definitely a delaying factor on atleast some of them, and you're right about the good events. You could get 3000 gold etc on turn 2 and it doesn't mean you're going to win-it helps a lot, but it's not a certain thing. Again, if you're LA Ermor, not so much of a big deal.

Alternative to my previous suggestion is this possibility:

I'd be happy if-instead of 3 years with no catastrophies-you got 1 year with no good or bad luck events if you choose 0 luck. That would make Luck 0 a strategic choice instead of just a default, which is nice.

Then you could further the same restriction against those with Luck positive or Misfortune positive. Luck positive means no bad luck events for that many years, while Misfortune positive means no good luck for that many years, then it defaults to the current situation.

Re: It\'d make a reasonable game configuration opti
 

I like your suggestion HoneyBadger. But maybe luck 0... is exactly the default we have now. Luck 1 would be no bad events for a year.

I also think that luck should be completely uncoupled from the order scale. None of the other scales are reduced or enchanced in effectiveness by a selection in a different scale.

Re: It\'d make a reasonable game configuration opti
 

I prefer Luck 0 as having a year off of both, because otherwise, why would I ever choose Luck 0? Luck 0 should be a strategic option, but if it's just the same as Misfortune 1 or Luck 1 as far as solving the problem at hand, then why choose it?

Re: It\'d make a reasonable game configuration opti
 

I wouldnt say that none overlap. The conversations about order often overlap with growth for maximum preferred effect. And growth with temperature.

On the luck 0:
it seems that taking no +/- should be the natural real world default of some good and some bad. That feels right but the problem with that thinking is that then +3 would be "no bad for x turns" and -3 becomes "no good for x turns". Id have to think about that.

It could be that luck 0 is no events at all good or bad for x turns. That also would seem that +3 means no bad for x turns, and -3 becomes no good for x turns.

Maybe it could be that all settings get no events at all, good or bad, for x turns. But then the X would have to be small enough to not have to monstrous an effect on small-map blitzes. I dont like game suggestions that seem to think that all games are small-map blitzes but I also dont want to ignore that many MANY games are that type.

Re: It\'d make a reasonable game configuration opti
 

"It could be that luck 0 is no events at all good or bad for x turns. That also would seem that +3 means no bad for x turns, and -3 becomes no good for x turns."

I think that's exactly what I'm saying, Gandalf, although not in the exact words by any means. As per Luck 0 being the default of that-no good and no bad events for x amount of turns, I'm perfectly fine with that, and I think I suggested something of the sort up there too http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/happy.gif

Thanks a lot.

Re: It\'d make a reasonable game configuration opti
 

Sorry, I was just trying to gather my stand on it from what all I had read.
But also, I think that might be what we already have. Though it might be as short as a 3 turn safety. I havent tested it lately.

Re: It\'d make a reasonable game configuration opti
 

Nothing to be sorry about, I just wasn't sure if you were confused or not about what I was saying.

It's definitely not 3 turns, I've had bad things happen on turn 2.

Re: It\'d make a reasonable game configuration opti
 

I think you're making wrong conclusions. Opponents were pretty good. My strategy was quite decent too. It was simply wrong - I expected to encounter uber-bless, but neither of my opponents didn't play it, so I ended up with relatively useless pretender and bunch of spells researched that weren't useful in particular situation. Another important point is that opposition doesn't generally consider destroying you as their own purpose. They have to be concerned with other nations getting stronger. Skirmishes in the early game is one thing, but a major war is a risky undertaking: if you can't win in fast, you're likely to end up in a poor position very soon. So as long as you're able to inflict (or at least convince them that you can inflict) serious damage on the opponents they will typically be satisfied by minor successes. After all they're following their grand plan and it's unlikely that they've built their strategy around you (their neighbour) having unlucky start.

Re: It\'d make a reasonable game configuration opti
 

Luck 1, year 2, Abyssia, lab destroyed. Because of an early luck event, I have no income coming in, and because of the strategy I'm playing, no realistic ability to generate income, and 2500g worth of mages are essentially worthless for X amount of turns.

Re: It\'d make a reasonable game configuration opti
 

You can alchemize fire gems. Besides, if in the second year you don't have enough income to buy a lab, are you sure that your strategy is good?

Re: It\'d make a reasonable game configuration opti
 

You can't alchemize fire gems without a LAB http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/happy.gif

Also, several people have suggested that one save up gold incase this exact type of event occurs, but you can't save up gold, there isn't a "1st Bank of Dominions" out there to store your gold for a rainy day.

The closest you can get is to alchemize fire-gems, which is exactly what you CANNOT do without access to a lab, you see?

It's a beautiful example of Catch-22

Re: It\'d make a reasonable game configuration opti
 

You have a treasury of unlimited size.


Unless you have so little self control that you can't bring yourself to not spend 400 of your gold.

Re: It\'d make a reasonable game configuration opti
 

What is your strategy that leads to having "no realistic ability to generate income"?

By year 2, you don't have enough provinces to have at least that much gold coming in? Luck events only affect one province at a time, so even if your capital's income was trashed, conquered provinces shouldn't all be.

By year 2, most people will have/be building a new fort/lab anyway. Lets you recruit more mages and insures against this kind of problem.

Abyssia does rely on gold. Are you doing something, massive blood hunting maybe, to crush your income and relying entirely on fire gems for gold?

In short, this seems a weakness in your strategy. You're gambling on this not happening, when there are reasonable ways to prepare for it.

Re: It\'d make a reasonable game configuration opti
 

If you need money for a lab you can always pillage a province. The problem is more losing your lab if you have no mage (it may happen in turn 2 if you have an imprisioned pretender and play a nation recruiting an holy 3 priest the first turn... you'll have to find a mercenary mage or wait 30 turns), or temple if you have lost your prophet and have no priest (but not so important as after 8 turns max you can make a new one).

The game breaking events are more often early invasions and ancient presence/migrations/plagues.

Re: It\'d make a reasonable game configuration opti
 

Can you confirm ? I'm positive about the lack of "safety period" in 3.00-3.02 (I've seen Plagues on turn 2 on several occasions), but not after.

Re: It\'d make a reasonable game configuration opti
 

You mean that was your ONLY lab? Just curious, what is your strategy? Year 2, with no income for lab (and no second lab), but at the same time 2500 worth of mages... - that means that you had enough income until just recently. If you're bloodhunting everywhere you could stop bloodhunting for a turn or two, but then, does it mean that you've 2500 worth of mages (that have nothing to do without lab) and enough bloodhunters to drive income to zero? How did you manage to recruit them with only one lab? http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/happy.gif

Re: It\'d make a reasonable game configuration opti
 

I dont think its as clear as a "no events for x turns". Its more like no catastrophic events for x turns. And of course everyone has different opinions on what is or isnt catastrophic. Id say that losing a lab before you would have recruited a mage would be a biggy.

Re: It\'d make a reasonable game configuration opti
 

Ok, 1: you have an unlimited size treasury, but in no way that I'm aware of can you protect any amount of gold from being itself wiped out by a bad event or being collected by troops or etc. You can't save say 200 gold for a rainy day, because all the gold in your treasury is open game.
2: I was alchemizing fire-gems for income, which is how I afforded all those mages.
3: I didn't really have a "strategy" in this instance, since I was just testing out Abyssia's ability to research in the early part of a game. In a real game I'd definitely have to build an additional lab or two.

Besides which, I've been trying to develope as far as they can be developed, strategies which don't rely on a gold-income. It makes the game a bit more challenging and more of an intellectual exercise.

That's not really here nor there, however, I'm just recording bad luck events on this thread-and I'd agree that by year 2 it's reasonable to expect to be able to recover from a bad event.

Should such a bad event be occurring by year 2 with Luck 1 and rare events? To decide that is the purpose of this thread.

Re: It\'d make a reasonable game configuration opti
 

Well some bad events are likely to happen, so its more of a question of HOW bad an event isnt it?

Re: It\'d make a reasonable game configuration opti
 

Well, that depends (as so much does) more on the level of experience of the player, and the circumstances of a given game, than it does the particular event in question.

Re: It\'d make a reasonable game configuration opti
 

Well, otherwise what would be stopping you from putting all of your gold in the "bank" every turn and becoming immune to gold-reducing events?

Re: It\'d make a reasonable game configuration opti
 

A penatly for "early withdrawal" perhaps? http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/happy.gif

Re: It\'d make a reasonable game configuration opti
 

You mean like putting 500 gold into recruiting knights, then taking them back 4 turns later because you need the gold for something else? Doesnt that escape harsh events? I do that alot. Not for that reason, but just because I have a crappy memory on where the knights were available. My "bank" is any province with knights, elephants, cavemen, shamblers, trolls.

Re: It\'d make a reasonable game configuration opti
 

So, there's no real way besides Gandalf's somewhat unsatisfying solution to "have the willpower to save gold for a rainy day".

I still think the game would be well served with a more advanced economic structure, but clearly it's a good idea in any game to purchase several labs and temples as a top priority regardless of your Luck scale, as the game currently stands.

Re: It\'d make a reasonable game configuration opti
 

Why is that unsatisfying?
The only alternatives I can think of would be a bank that holds it, or maybe the ability to create/uncreate items such as fire gems. Anything I can think of doesnt strike me as being preferable to creating expensive long-term units where you would at least get something back for leaving your investment there over time (I dont see dom banks paying interest).

Re: It\'d make a reasonable game configuration opti
 

While the talk about banking is rather amusing, I think it's also somewhat beside the point.

Personally, I think GP's idea of a more quantified scale of events has a great deal of merit. And yes, I do think there should be a 'no random events whatsoever' point on that scale. Clearly, that would make the Luck scale be worthless in-game. A further option would be to have a 'luck quality' scale in addition to a 'luck quantity' scale. In this case, the luck scale cost would be a function of the 'quality' and not the 'quantity'. (After all, currently we can change the quantity of events and that does not change the overall value of the Luck scale.)

Personally, I find myself taking Order3 Luck3 a lot in games. Yes, it's a lot of points, but I despise negative events, and this is the setting that absolutely minimizes the chance of a bad event. Giving me an option to remove random events (and the accompanying scale) from the game would actually increase my options for playing, which can only be a good thing.

Re: It\'d make a reasonable game configuration opti
 

I agree with the order3, luck3 combo. Good scales with a nation who has poor or non-existant sacreds is a excellent strategy. Some of my MP's are very funny at the moment, alot of players are taking double/triple bless who means they have appalling scales. So rather than fight them I sign a 3 turn warning non-aggression pact and just develop/build in peace while there own dominion destroys them. Its amusing as my scouts pick up yet another province that has been attacked/revolted etc...

However I love the entire luck/misfortune mehanic it really spices the game up and reduces predictablity.

Re: It\'d make a reasonable game configuration opti
 

Gandalf, by "unsatisfying" I mean "artificially imposed". Your method no doubt does work, but it doesn't work in a way that is logical or meaningful. It only works because the program is written in a certain way, not because there's some kind of "Knights of the Order of the Grasping Usury" do you see what I mean?

Re: It\'d make a reasonable game configuration opti
 

When I asked about strategy I wasn't trying to critizise it, just trying to figure out how you got into the situation.

How do you get your income so low? With a high fire gem income, so you've obviously taken provinces. You said another bad event had trashed your capital income, but what about other provinces? (And if that was the plague you mentioned earlier, that's "lose 1/5th population", not "down to 1/5th" right? Bad, but hardly no income?)
Really bad other scales? Turmoil? Sloth?

Without some idea how you got there, I can't see how this is such a problem. Other than maybe AE Ermor/Dreamlands R'lyeh, I've never seen a position where I wouldn't be able to afford a lab in a turn, 2 at most if I had another income loss event.