February 16th, 2004, 07:10 AM
|
|
|
Re: Been said before, but... luck vs misfortune
Quote:
Originally posted by Zurai:
To put it bluntly, that *is not worth it*. The huge population loss events need to A) be MUCH rarer with positive Luck, B) be impossible to get with positive Luck, or C) be counterbalanced by an equal or near-equal chance of the +5000 population event (which I *have* seen once, so I know it exists. That was in a Luck 3 game, though). Currently taking extra Luck is absolutely worthless because it has no discernable effect on decreasing your bad luck, and tends to only get you minor increases of gems or gold.
For the record, this is over the course of 30 turns with Turmoil 3. Yes, I realized Turmoil 3 increases the chances of events happening, but with luck +1 I'm supposed to have a 60/40 good luck/bad luck split on events. It actually came out to 50/50 with the bad events being much, much worse.
|
Luck is Luck. It fits some people and other people it does not fit. Personally I don't take Luck unless I take it all the way. And I don't usually take Luck unless I feel the need to, because as it has been said, luck is luck.
I much prefer this system of luck to the previous system, as it makes misfortune more of a detriment than it was previously with Order.
I wouldn't take any amount of Turmoil without 3 Luck, as it's just asking for a beating. (Unless of course you are Ermor)
I still believe the weighting of the events need to be adjusted and perhaps the % given a minor tweak (more in line with Cherry's Scale 13 vs 10).
And just for reference. I often get very bad luck in MP games, same as everyone else  Often times I think Luck has it out for me when I don't give the ol' horseshoe a kiss.
[ February 16, 2004, 05:13: Message edited by: Zen ]
|