Big Problem - Unbalanced random events

Jasper · #1 November 23rd, 2003, 01:00 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Chris Byler:
Really, how many places have catastrophic flooding every year? The Nile valley and...? And the annual Nile floods didn't kill 1/4 of the population of Egypt every year, either. The only disasters I can think of with that kind of kill rate are major volcanic eruptions (Thera, Vesuvius, Krakatoa), which are once in several centuries for the whole world. Hurricanes don't kill 1/4 the population of Florida (or India). Maybe 1/10.

Good point. These events shouldn't kill population, so much as make you temporarily lose
income. Rather like the "Good Harvest" events.
Even losing 1/10 of your population to an event is ridiculous for nearly all events.

Kristoffer O · #2 November 23rd, 2003, 01:00 AM

The dominion does not only affect the minds of people, it changes the very lands, thus more storms in a land of turmoil, more blizzards in a land of cold and more treasures found in a land of fortune.

The changes in the scales were intended to make the scale effects easy to grasp. At first each scale was to affect one area only. This was not entirely good and now growth and production do increas income for example (not as much as in Dom I though).

Luck and events have not been altered a second time. It bothers me that there is a default setting that everyone feels compulsed to use, but I'm not yet sure what should be done and what effects we wish to avoid and what to add.

Kristoffer O · #3 November 23rd, 2003, 01:03 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Jasper:
Good point. These events shouldn't kill population, so much as make you temporarily lose
income. Rather like the "Good Harvest" events.
Even losing 1/10 of your population to an event is ridiculous for nearly all events.

A valid point when you consider that we at Illwinter are opposed to ridiculous population growth

Raen · #4 November 23rd, 2003, 01:04 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Gandalf Parker:
I dont see such a "broad consensus". Most of us seem to say its working as it is. If you dont want events then dont ask for events.

Who asked for events? With Order +1 and events at *rare*, I'm still getting at least a brigand lair a year. Sometimes I'll get an event every month....at "rare," that just seems to me absurd.

IMO you shouldn't have to set a scale at 3 to have events actually be rare....that's presumably what the setting is for.

Again, I see nothing wrong with introducing an additional setting. Those of you happy with the way things are don't have to use it.

apoger · #5 November 23rd, 2003, 01:28 AM

>It bothers me that there is a default setting that everyone feels compulsed to use, but I'm not yet sure what should be done and what effects we wish to avoid and what to add.

Trying to fidget the system might be difficult from your perspective. I suggest doing work on mod tools. Given a chance the players will create mods galore. These would be put through much more intensive playtesting than you would normally get in house, and if it is poor you get no blame, only credit for releasing the tools. With many well tested mods out there, most players will be satisfied.

There are many disturbingly dedicated players like Gandalf, Saber Cherry, and myself, who will gladly do the work and take the heat... if you get us ANY significant tools to work with.

If we could edit- Scales, Units (including pretenders), Nations, Spells, and Forts, we could produce a beautiful supply of new content. More content would help sell your core game. I don't see any downside.

Kristoffer O · #6 November 23rd, 2003, 01:43 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by apoger:
>It bothers me that there is a default setting that everyone feels compulsed to use, but I'm not yet sure what should be done and what effects we wish to avoid and what to add.

Trying to fidget the system might be difficult from your perspective. I suggest doing work on mod tools. Given a chance the players will create mods galore. These would be put through much more intensive playtesting than you would normally get in house, and if it is poor you get no blame, only credit for releasing the tools. With many well tested mods out there, most players will be satisfied.

There are many disturbingly dedicated players like Gandalf, Saber Cherry, and myself, who will gladly do the work and take the heat... if you get us ANY significant tools to work with.

If we could edit- Scales, Units (including pretenders), Nations, Spells, and Forts, we could produce a beautiful supply of new content. More content would help sell your core game. I don't see any downside.

There are no downsides and the modding tools exist. They are just not released yet.

As of yet the mod tools are rather simple. For example: Scales can be altered to have higher or lower effects, but unless we reinsert an effect on luck affecting the number of events occuring you will not be able to change that aspect of the events. More moddable variables are of course better, but it might take more work to implement.

The first nation modding beta was finished by JK today.

The tools will now be tested for a while.

apoger · #7 November 23rd, 2003, 01:54 AM

>There are no downsides and the modding tools exist. They are just not released yet.

Excellent!

>The first nation modding beta was finished by JK today. The tools will now be tested for a while.

As always, if you need help testing, let me know, as I'd be glad to help.