[LintMan]

Originally posted by Graeme Dice:

quote:

---

Originally posted by LintMan:
In my current game with Turmoil -1, Luck 0, I usually see several events per turn. At best, the good events give me a few gems, some gold, or maybe a new temple or some militia somewhere.

Well, you didn't pay for a luck scale, so you can't expect to get good events any more often than the bad ones.

---

I'm not saying that I expected to get any *more* good events than bad events. What I was saying was that the *negative impact* of the bad events was stronger than the *positive impact* of the good events, so that the *net impact* of Luck 0 was overall negative.

Intuitively, I would expect that at Luck 0, over the long run, you'd more or less expect to pretty much break even on good things vs bad things happening to you; the good outcomes would more or less offset the bad ones, and the bad outcomes would more or less offset the good ones.

I'm not talking about the number of good vs bad events, but the effects of those events.

As an exagerated example, lets say I played 10 hands of poker at a casino, and tell you I won 5 and lost 5 hands. You say "So you broke even, then?", and I say "No, I lost $750: on the hands I won, I got $50 each time, but on the hands I lost, I lost $150 each time". That's sort of what Luck 0 feels like to me: about even numbers of $50 wins and $150 losses.

This is all subjective, of course, but I've seen posters in other threads make similar comments, so I don't think it's just me.

(Note: I don't expect things to work out perfectly evenly, but it's not even close. At luck 0, I'm seeing what I'd consider major misfortune events *regularly*, while I've yet to see even a single lucky event of the same magnitude.)

quote:

---

Those good things just don't come close to balancing out the bad ones. That means that those who take order 3, misfortune -3 will get very few good events, but it will hardly matter: the good events just aren't that beneficial, and overall with order 3, Misfortune -1, they probably will *still* get less overall bad events than I do with turmoil -1, luck 0.

That's is extremely unlikely, since they will get only 5% fewer events than you will, and 80% of the events they do get will be bad events. They could expect that about a quarter of their games will be severely impacted in the first 10 turns by their scale choice, and they will have to continually deal with random attacks on their provinces. You get 5% more events in total, and only 50% of them will be bad. You also have 40 more nation points than they do to work with, so you can't expect yourself to benefit as much from the scales as they do.

---

Four steps on the order/turmoil scale only amounts to a 5% difference in number of events? So for my 100 events at turmoil 1, they'd have 95 at order 3?

I'm no expert, but from the postings I've read on these forums, I'd gathered that order had a much stronger effect on events than that. (I'd also gathered that Order 3/Misfortune -3 was a fairly common choice among players, with the misfortune paying for the order benefits, while the order scale reducing the misfortune pains).

Is there anyplace that explains the current system of how the luck/order scales tie into events? I searched and found a lengthy thread from January, but didn't see any exact descriptions of the way it works.

quote:

---

I liked Saber Cherry's idea of events getting categorized into major/minor classes.

They already are, and always have been classified as such. This is an _old_ thread, and much of the information is not correct. It dates back to considerably before the first patch was even released.

---

Doh!

Even so, my suggestion that the good events should be as good as the bad events are bad still holds. My suspicion is that if you compared good and bad events side by side, either the good events will look fairly pale in comparison to the bad ones, or some bad events that I consider "major" are actually getting classed as "minor" ones.

-LintMan