Quote:
Originally Posted by chrispedersen
Quote:
Originally Posted by Edi
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.
|
The problem is edi, as I tried to point out before, is that other people pay the price for *you* taking unluck. I'm not talking scales.
If a player takes misfortune 3.. and gets knocked out of the game on turn 1 - or even in the first year - it unbalances the game for the remaining players. |
I've got to say I don't really see the logic in this argument, that taking Misfortune costs all other players in the game. I mean players can get knocked out early for any number of reasons, including a host of real-life issues cropping up causing a withdrawal, simple incompetence (you know, damn, my uber-Markata rush tactic just didn't work out this time!) and, of course, bad luck of the regular kind (having one's expansion force wiped out early next to a powerful early-game nation through an inadvertent meeting, for instance).
So what to we do against these other things? Soul Contracts for all MP participants promising infernal retribution if they ever ever leave the game? Application of The Sickle Whose Crop Is Pain to the scrotums of those whose early game is considered inadequate?
I mean people get knocked out relatively early in nice normal no alarms no surprises games (at least I gather from reading the forums).
In a current game of mine three players including myself ganged on one, and when his resistance broke one of the three was in position to sweep up the bulk of the rushee's provinces while we were recovering from the fighting.
The rushee himself had expanded beyond all other nations early in the game, possibly due to the fact my own expansion had been less than optimal (I refer you to the 'incompetence' point made earlier).
Both these events were quite 'unbalancing' in the sense that one player set up a massive empire far outstripping the other players in the game.
But so what? That's every game!
Perhaps the most unbalancing thing about early misfortune events (again taking this from comments earlier in the thread) is that the people getting such events decide to go AI, when a bit of elbow grease could at least make them competitive and stop those lucky bastard neighbouring nations from sweeping in for easy pickings. This obviously doesn't apply when you get your cap sieged by indy's before you own another province (which must be horrendously unlucky; how often does that happen anyway?)
It's a lack of respect for 'game balance' that's the real problem!
Play it out misfortunteers!