Luck/Misfortune Nerf.
 

Hi all.
Don't you hate it when you don't even have any misfortune and you still lose your lab or temple (or both). Or when your population is cut in half, and then in quarters, and then in 8ths, all within the first 3 years of the game?
I do. It's the one thing that does put me in favor of some kind of save game feature.

I'd really like to see this fixed so that, unless you actually have taken misfortune scales, you won't suffer a great misfortune for the first 3 years of the game.

Sure, I don't have a problem with witch's curses, rains of toads, or barbarian hordes, but I think that a minimum of Luck 0 should grant you a little breather from any totally ruinous disasters for the first 3 years into the game.

It's especially bad in a MP game because either you're well on your way out, or everybody else has to change their playing style to prevent you getting killed.

If you take Misfortune, you asked for it and your on your own, but I think it's reasonable to expect to not have your game randomly rendered fairly unenjoyable through no fault and no in-game bad luck of your own.

Three years is a reasonable amount of time for any competent player to be able to build a nation which can survive the worst that ill-luck can throw at you, meaning that instead of coming down to randomness, we'll see more games coming down to strategy.

Thanks.

It\'d make a reasonable game configuration option.
 

Maybe even letting magnitude of events vary, so that the massively *good* events also aren't occurring for some period -- in this case, the price of the Luck/Misfortune scale would need to sharply decline in non-large games.

Re: It\'d make a reasonable game configuration option.
 

I totally agree with that one. If you haven't picked any Luck scales, you shouldn't be getting 3000 gold, a handful of fire gems, and a magic item, for atleast 3 years into the game.

It's hard to adjust the price of luck/misfortune, or any scales, because they all are set to cost 40 points per level. That means changes to them need to be done to the business end, rather than the input end, and that can be tricky. It would be nice if scales reflected upon the size of a starting map, the number of nations, how large your nation happens to be at a given time, etc. The above 3000 gold ++ is fantastic if you get it the first turn, but not quite as good when you own 2/3rds of the map and gold's like water to you.

Dynamic scales I imagine would be a programming nightmare, though.

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

I guess I wouldn't mind seeing some of the more far-out events limited to those nations with far-out luck (good or bad). It's not really the case that a run of bad luck means the game is totally over, though... For example, in a multiplayer game, I lost 2/3 of my home population in the first two turns, and then suffered massive unrest in the third turn - with no misfortune scales! My income was decimated, but I made friends with my neighbors, survived, and am now one of the stronger nations in the game. Single-player is different, of course, but single-player it's not such a big deal to start a new game if you get hosed ten minutes into it.

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

As long as both the really good and really bad events were both restricted to appropriate scales the costs wouldn't have to change, since middle of the road scales would lose both the good and bad effects. If anything the scale tips should be worth MORE points, since luck 3 would keep the good but lose the chance for bad events, and vice versa.

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

You dont feel that misfortune is a useable tactic? Besides getting points for it, you can do your empires business outside of your domain and then push the bad domain strongly onto your enemies.

Of couse that doesnt work so well on small blitz games.

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

That's why i'm in love with +3 Luck. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/happy.gif

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

Maybe its just bad things happening in your capitol that need to be restricted the first couple of years.

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

If you don´t spend points on luck why you expect to have good events?

I hope they don´t nerf a thing. I don´t want the scales to give free pick points at all. That´s pointless. As if you take death your mages suffer from old age more often. and so on.

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

I am a huge turmoil 3 luck 3 fan http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/happy.gif

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

3 years? I had 2 bad events which hit me at luck 0 in the first 2 turns of one game. Definitely ruined my ability to do anything in the game (well, that and the fact I picked Bandar Log too). So preventing bad events for 3 turns, OK. But for 3 years? Definitely that's way way too long. It would mean an automatic Misfortune 3 for me, with Order3 becoming almost free.

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

There is a game switch to make events rare. Dont most of the small blitz games turn that on?

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

I think a couple of the later posters missed the point of the OP's post, instead going by his questionable choice of thread titles (I think "early extreme events nerf" may have been more to the point, since the issue isn't with the scales).

The point isn't that the scales should be nerfed, just that if you don't take misfortune you shouldn't have to deal with a plague in your capital on turn 2. It's really not fun trying to play a game with half of your income gone. If you want to roll the dice by playing misfortune scales you're welcome to, that's part of your pretender design.

Then, to balance this change so that it isn't a one-way nerf to misfortune, other posters suggested that really good events be similarly restricted to those with luck scales, which maintains the parity between the two.

I'm in support of this idea, although I doubt it will get coded. There's plenty of randomness in the game already, especially regarding starting locations. Losing half your income early on to an event is basially an auto-loss. Being forced to take luck 3 to (more often) avoid horrible events is much less preferable to just restricting both ends of the spectrum to the appropriate scales. Your capital's starting income and resources are always the same (modified by scales), its events should be as well.

Twobits: I like the idea, but in order to maintain fairness the restriction should be in place for all of a player's provinces...I'd trade 10 plagues and 3000 unrest in the 500 pop swamp near my cap for one 1500 gold event there. Good events tend to be less province-specific (gold and magic items pass go and proceed directly to the treasury, for example) while the bad ones (especially the really nasty ones like Bogus and population decimation ones) mostly stay put in the province they happen in.

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

Most of those extreme events though are also related to taking extreme scales other than luck/misfortune.

Some terrible events can only hapen if you have high death for example, jsut as some great events can only happen if you have high magic. At least that is how I understand it.

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

And they should all be setbacks only. If I remember, you can lose a temple early but not the lab.

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

Yes, thank you Micah.

3 years is only 36 turns, which-considering the amount of strategic choices you can make-might be a lot for some people or nothing at all for others.

3 years is an arbitrary number, BUT here's the thing, it's also the average number of years you can expect to wait for your Pretender, if your Pretender is imprisoned, so it's a Dev-chosen length of time set as an outer limit on when your game should be rolling by.

3 years thus is a strategic byline coded into the game as a soft but strong number already.

And I'm definitely not saying "Let's not have any bad events happen at all in the first three years!".

I'm not suggesting that they not happen if you decide to choose Misfortune scales.

I'm not suggesting that they not happen if you choose to have Luck scales.

I'm just saying that if you have Luck +0-+3, you shouldn't have to worry about a major, game-altering, Nation-imploding bad luck event, like losing your temple or lab (in certain circumstances, losing your temple is just as bad or even worse than losing your lab-playing Mictlan for instance with low Dom and an imprisoned Pretender) or your population being halved or having 25 vampire counts attack your province, or having your Dominion mirror-reversed to black candles in your home province, before turn 37.

On turn 37 I don't care if the Hunter of Heroes eats your castle and then sits on your face, that's tough luck but by that time your nation has a decent chance to recover, regardless of what kind of strategy you happen to follow.

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

Oh and another small but nice side-effect of this would be to make another area of the game time-related, than just sticking me with a bunch of old magic-using geezers who end up forgetting their spells and drooling on themselves half the time anyway.

If time causes, and is related to, bad things happening, it should also cause, and be related to, good things. I'm all in favor of that.

(I'm also in favor of the philosophy that-if you have Nations who are handicapped over time because of the age of their units, you should also have Nations with units who grow stronger over time, as that's only logical and makes for balance, but that's another thread.)

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

36 turns is a long ways into a small map blitz game. That would make taking unluck a no-brainer. We would have new people complaining then because to some thats all that Dominions is.

And I mentioned lab because if you have no mages and you lose your only lab then you will wait for a hero or a merc that has magic in order to build one. With the loss of a temple you just need your prophet.

And Im pretty sure that the most extreme events are already supposed to be limited in the initial turns. Only taking the most extreme scales can make you that unlucky since I think it never quite goes to zero.

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

Well then 12 turns for small maps, 24 for medium, 36 for large, etc. No reason we can't suggest Scales be themselves "scaled" to fit situations. Ideally, you could simply select the level of adjustment at the beginning of the game and apply it based on personal choice and circumstances.

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

If you took misfortune 3 you'd still run the chance of bad events, same as now, the proposed change wasn't for anyone that took actual bad scales, why do people not seem to be reading that?

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

I think it has something to do with my poor choice of title. I just like using the word "nerf" is all http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/image...es/biggrin.gif

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

But losing that initial temple *is* a severe setback for many nations; if all your mages are sacred, and your Prophet is a few provinces away by turn 3, not only can't you recruit anyone to replace the temple, but you can't recruit *anyone*...

It's not so bad in Dom3 with sleeping/imprisoned pretenders, but I remember in Dom2 once losing my Oracle pretender on turn 2 to an independent assassin. That was a game-stopper!

All bad events are setbacks, but some really are much more vicious than others, especially in the very early game. Having to spend half of your first 8 turns just recovering from a random-event setback can put you unrecoverably far behind other players.

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

But I thought the game was already setup so that those things didnt happen early. Or at least, didnt happen unless you had taken settings that specifically said "Im willing to take the chance"

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

Which is why I initially wrote this post, Gandalf.

I was trying to spread out my poor Mictlan Dom (2) and in the middle of it, lost the lab for my home provice. It happened before the 3rd year was over and I had a Luck of 0. It wasn't in this case a particularly enormous loss, I admit, but it could have been had I been using a different strategy, or playing an MP game-or even seriously endeavoring to play a game, rather than just testing theory.

I didn't ask for bad luck, I also didn't ask for good luck-please note. But it certainly was reason enough to post about it. I would appreciate it if other people could take the time to test this and see how limited catastrophic events are in the first 3 years of the game, just so that Gandalf and I could compare notes.

Thanks.

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

The problem, in a nutshell, is starting with 1 province.

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

But I like starting with 1 province.

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

I think that at the moment the safety zone is set for something like 3 turns. So its not the want as much as the range of the safety that is in question.

And of course, starting with one province is a game option. I often like to start with 3-5 on large maps.

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

Losing your lab sometime in the first 3 years isn't really that big a deal. It's a one turn delay on recruiting capital-only mages and researching/casting in the capital along with 500gp. Not a game breaker.

Losing your lab in the first few turns when you might not even have recruited a mage yet. That's a game breaker, especially with dormant/imprisoned pretender.
Same for early temple loss.

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

Have you tried using Random Events Are Rare? http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/image...ies/tongue.gif

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

Is there any "safety zone" at the start of a game? I don't think so.

Once my capitol got hit by vampires on the 2nd turn (before I had the chance to even think of attacking my first independant) of a small , random map MP game (and I had +1 luck to boot).

Wiped out my PD and income right from the get-go. I had to demand a restart, and justifiably, I think.

That's the kind of irritating (and major time wasting - we're talking days if you're playing PBEM, like we were) event that needs to be mitigated against.

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

One of the worst things is having an imprisoned pretender and losing your lab before recruiting a mage.

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

Ok, so what I'd like is the option to set the "safety zone" to a maximum of 36 turns with possibly some options in between the two extremes. Maybe 3, 6, 12, 24, 36.

Thejeff, that's just a minimal example of a bad situation that repeatedly comes up. Losing your lab within the first 3 years might not be catastrophic in and of itself, but if you are playing a no-income nation (and I often do) and have to wait up to a year or two to gather 500 gold, and you can't cash in gems, then it becomes really viciously bad for your nation.

Frankly, I'd be pleased if there were a way to cash in gems without needing a lab. It seems just as reasonable, since the game uses a gold economy (the basic dollar equals a POUND of gold at a time...assuming it's pure 24 carat gold, and assuming mining techniques are primitive, especially in Early Age, where are they getting it all??? A pound of silver I could see. An ounce of gold I could see. Paying 10-20lbs of gold for a militia unit, nope.) to be able to cash in gems without needing a lab/alchemy.

Maybe as a basic function of the Fortress, and extend it to all gems, possibly keeping different prices per gem, and maybe having a fluctuating price based on the size of your nation-so that gems are worth more, the larger your nation is (at the time when lots of gems are more valuable to you), divided by decreasing in price the more the market is flooded by a specific gem.

Ofcourse, the nature of the game tends to preclude a nation-to-nation trade option, I guess I understand that, but there could still be a shadow economy going wherein a nation would put gems on the market for purchase by-for instance-that damned old witch who keeps cursing my troops.

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

Even the no income nations have some income. Newly captured provinces, luck events. Years to get 500 gold? Months maybe.

If you're really concerned about this, build another lab or keep the money on hand. Consider it insurance.

I assume you have money at some point. All the no income nations (Which is what now? LE Ermor & Rl'yeh?) benefit from temples and forts.

The first couple turn problems are in a different category, since there's so little you can do to prepare and with only 1 province the effects are proportionally much worse.

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

Totally off topic (forgive me please), but regarding that witch who curses your troops for raiding her hut for gems, do you actually get any extra gems for that event?

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

@TwoBits:
Its hard to tell but yes you should get some. However, Johans idea of little, some, many a lot, is quite abit different from the players.

@HoneyBadger:
The turns limit on bad events at 36 seems crazy to me. Ive seen many blitz games of 2-4 players that are considered to be over by that time. A setting of 36 turns would make taking -3 luck a total no-brainer.

I agree it could use some balancing since at the moment +3 luck seems pretty automatic for many people.

Well, if he\'s only protecting with Luck +0 - +3...
 

...Misfortune of any kind still doesn't become automatic.

I really wouldn't mind seeing SEIV-level event modding, where individual events could be tweaked in magnitude and were rated as to severity. It'd probably please some of the more grognardish players who seek more predictability... some of the events can be quite lucrative or destructive (free items can be as high as Cons 6, if memory serves; 3000 gold AND items is nice; if you've been using Growth +3 in a long game to get lots of pop and it gets wiped out by Ancient Presence, that's ugly).

3 years -is- a very long time, 'tho; by that time, it would seem rather reasonable to have another fort/temple/lab complex and at least some cash reserve, unless it's a custom map with absolutely brutal independent forces that slow everybody down.

Re: Well, if he\'s only protecting with Luck +0 - +3...
 

Gandalf, you're right, 3 years is everything on a small map in a blitz game. And it's NOTHING on an enormous 1500 province map with gold, resources, and supplies set to 50-which is how I normally play.

And if 3 years is too much for some people, that's ok, give us the option to decide what's too much and what's too little and that will have me whistling dixie.

And I'm not talking taking Luck -3 (or Misfortune 3), I'm talking taking Luck 0 PLUS. There's a big difference. I keep pointing this out, Micah keeps pointing this out, and nobody else seems to understand that all I'm suggesting is, if you don't take any misfortune, you shouldn't suffer apocalyptic events before a certain user-defineable turn.

I'm fine with bad events. I'm fine with taking any amount of misfortune and losing my temple on turn 1. I have no issue with that.

I just don't want to set up a gigantic game with a 1500 province map and have to worry about inconveniencing 20 people at a time for days in the case of PBEM, just because one of them happened to roll an illusionary 1 on the mighty computer dice.

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

And yes, by the way, I am well aware of-and extensively use-the random-limiting feature. Bad events still occur frequently, even with it turned on, and even to the point where they trash nations within the first 36 turns, with Luck 0.

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

I wouldnt mind seeing that setting expanded. It seems like have two settings on levels of events is way too small. And most of the other switches have a much more extended range.

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

I wouldn't mind pop migration events if they didn't just dissapear but moved to neighboring provinces. Ditto for overtaxing.

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

I agree with both HoneyBadger and Gandalf Parker. But as a largely SP sort, I would like more options with regard to points that influence events. A curtailment for three to six turns or something would be tolerable. 36 is too much.

Furthermore, it's important that even the Pretenders that go +3 Luck ought to have crappy things take place occasionally. Am I the only one that actually gets caught up in the role playing of Dom3? Take it as it comes, girl.

Remember that time that some of you old coots, myself halfway there, rolled a twenty sided die as a 1, two or three times in a row, back in the eighties. The ka-ching pays off in the long run, insofar as immersion, despite frustration.

As Gandalf, and others, has/have clearly stated many times, if you're going after a long term PBEM game or a quick blitz, there are settings to take care of this 'problem'.

I fail to understand why this is even a major issue.

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

Who's a girl?
Sorry to disappoint all the starstruck lovers out there, but I'm a big hairy Sasquatch of a man. And married, too.

The roleplaying issue is fine, and I like to use my imagination as well as the next person, but this isn't the point. It doesn't enhance my experience to settle in to play an extended game only to have my nation obliterated.

If 36 turns is too much for you, then that's fine, choose something different. I'd certainly agree that in some circumstances, it is too much-especially small and blitz multi-player games. In others though, I don't think it is.
I just would like to have the opportunity to determine what's best for the circumstances of any given game.

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

If he ever actually went up against a honeybadger he would be unlikely to think "feminine" ever again in connection to taht name.
http://www.honeybadger.com/

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

hahaha, sorry to disappoint you two, but I was making a reference to some late 80s Milli Vanilli lyric there, as opposed to bothering with gender messiness. Feel free to look it up yourselves and re-read my post.

Clearly you both thought otherwise. *still chuckling*

Regardless, this thread is dead. And I place my trust in the designers to continue focusing their effort(s), insofar as their programming and creative time, on things that further the aspects that have enraptured all of us. As opposed to mass audience placation.

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

Why not make prevent luck events from happening in the capitol for, oh, twelve turns? Luck and Misfortune would still have strong effects starting from the first conquest. The early major catastrophes aren't a disadvantage to taking Misfortune, because you'll just restart. They are in effect bugs when they happen.

Incidentally, getting 3000 gold on turn 2 in a MP game is IMO a major problem too. I guess it doesn't happen often enough for people to object.

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

tromper, as to your referencing a Milli Vanilli lyric...well, I definitely feel disappointment, along with shock, disgust, shame, and general appaul, although perhaps not in the direction you intend http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/happy.gif And it's hardly fair or accurate to pronounce the thread as "dead" since there's quite a lot of people posting to it every day.

Perhaps you have it confused with Milli Vanilli's career?

Well, any reasonable set amount would certainly be a good start, curtadams. I just feel that with a strategy game of this complexity is better served by an array of choices than just one "I know I'm right and this is the way it has to be" opinion.

It's just not that kind of game.

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

I do agree about the 3000 gold etc. event, but then it's already been hashed over. I agree that really unfair ADvantages are as inappropriate as really unfair DISADvantages, within the first to-be-decided-upon-by-individual-users-or-general-consensus-at-the-start-of-the-game period of time.

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

I very much like the entire current luck/misfortune mechanics as they ARE. As someone who always usually plays with extreme luck/misfortune, events both good/bad have never been totally responsible for me losing or winning a game.

Those mechanics should be left AS THEY ARE. Developers time would be better spent on other changes.

Anybody blaming luck/misfortune on losing a game or having there game spoiled is really using it as an EXCUSE for there own poor gameplay.

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

That's hardly the case, Meglobob. Even Gandalf seems to think the idea has some merit, and he's hardly an example of a poor player.

I often play with extreme luck/misfortune, and when I do, it's a strategic choice. I'm not making any excuses, or claims about my ability as a player of the game. I'm simply pointing out an area of the game that seems far too arbitrary and can potentially reduce the enjoyment of the game for many people, not just a few.

And I never said I'd lost a game because of a bad luck event, I've just had the fun sucked out of the experience for far longer than any choices of mine would merit.

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

Having your home province trashed by renegade vampire-counts in the second turn should hardly be considered an "excuse". I rate it up there with having the computer start you on a one-province island (what the heck is up with that?) as an immediate game ending scenario.