![]() |
Re: The most dreadful (random) event?
Herode, that is a very useful analysis of luck/misfortune. I've never encountered a post that even vaguely quantified good/bad events.
That is a study worthy of its own thread. |
Re: The most dreadful (random) event?
Quote:
|
Re: The most dreadful (random) event?
Re: the Kirke-Skogu event, KO, I assume this is a negative event, and can thus be stopped by Fortunetelling?
I say this because I've had Kirke and Skogu in the same province for many many turns (my capital) over many games (I like Sauromatia), and I've never ever seen that event. Also, isn't one of the Partholonians (I think it's the relatively new Queen hero added to Sauromatia) also related to Skogu somehow? |
Re: The most dreadful (random) event?
> Re: the Kirke-Skogu event, KO, I assume this is a negative event, and can thus be stopped by Fortunetelling?
Aha. Most likely. How clever of you :) Quote:
Quote:
|
Re: The most dreadful (random) event?
Quote:
I believe this sort of thing is harmful to the game. Remove bad events from the capital but make luck/misfortune have more of an effect elsewhere--perhaps raise the maximum number of events per turn, add some nastier events--Bogus II, just like the original except every turn he attacks what he thinks is the weakest adjacent province. |
Re: The most dreadful (random) event?
Unrest events early on should be more balanced though, especially multiple unrest. Being unlucky is 1 thing, getting eliminated by it is another thing. And no, that risk is no reason to go for Luck.
We all know that biggest problem is that Luck does not work well with Order 3. And 90% people take O3. So they naturally take misfortune as it also does not scale with size and is useless if you conquer enemy provinces [and well, that is your goal, isn't it?]. It can of course work nice on smaller maps, when you take a risk of lower income for a chance to get nice gold/fort/gem events instead. Hard to build any strategy on it though. |
Re: The most dreadful (random) event?
I agree Zeldor misfortune gives bad events... sure, that is known and accepted and the whole point, but getting ruined by it on the first (or first 3-5) turns is not balanced
|
Re: The most dreadful (random) event?
Bad events are the whole bloody point of misfortune. If you take it, then you run the risk of being ruined by that misfortune early on, tough luck. Even if it does cost you the game in the first few turns. On the other hand, with Misfortune 3, you just got 120 points extra to spend on dominion, magic paths and/or other scales which should presumably offset the problems of the misfortune scale.
Misfortune is already one of the most widely used scales, so why the hell should it be nerfed just so people can feel they can safely take it? Can anyone give me any actual viable reason why this should be? The best solution I can see is increasing the maximum number of possible events per turn, as that would scale both luck and misfortune a lot better, especially in large games. |
Re: The most dreadful (random) event?
I am only talking about getting for example 120 unrest on turn2 in your capitol. Order should decrease unrest events. And I am talking about that not in context of misf-luck balance. As I said - not scaling of it + bad events from enemy dom replacing your good ones is a thing that makes it unbalanced.
|
Re: The most dreadful (random) event?
I don't understand. Why would 90% people take Misf if it is unbalanced, that's what I cant' figure. If Luck is not worth its price and Misf unbalanced, then 95% of the players should take Luck 0, I guess :p
|
All times are GMT -4. The time now is 07:25 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.1
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©1999 - 2025, Shrapnel Games, Inc. - All Rights Reserved.