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.