|
|
|
 |

March 25th, 2004, 06:16 AM
|
 |
General
|
|
Join Date: Nov 2000
Posts: 3,013
Thanks: 17
Thanked 25 Times in 22 Posts
|
|
Re: Big Problem - Unbalanced random events
Quote:
Originally posted by LintMan:
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.
|
Sure. But it's overall negative for just about everybody since everyone has a similar set of events to draw from.
Quote:
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?
|
(Mis)fortune affects event frequency by 5% per step.
Order/Turmoil affects event frequency by 5% per step.
Quote:
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).
|
Order 3 misfortune 3 is asking to have your game plan ruined by negative events. If you want to test it, you have to consider that a MP game doesn't usually start over if your temple is destroyed on turn two.
|

March 25th, 2004, 08:29 AM
|
|
Re: Big Problem - Unbalanced random events
Quote:
Originally posted by LintMan:
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).
|
I do not feel this is the case. But I may not be the majority. Previously to Patch 2.08 you may have been correct. There was no reason not to take Order 3/Misfortune 3 because it was free 21% Income increase with no real drawback.
However now that the scales have been modified I can only think of one game I have played since then that I have dared take Misfortune 3 while trying to compete. And I was burned by it.
That isn't to say I take more Turmoil than I ever did (since the only times I play Turmoil are for the hell of it, trying ideas, not with any serious intention) but that I tend to think of the Luck scale less on it's coupling with Order, but more on it's own merit and what level and frequency of events I am trying to avoid/gain.
Order3/Misfortune3 can still work like it used to, due to the factors of luck in general. But that is part of the game, if you play with Luck you tend to play with the dice. Sometimes it likes you even when you are playing Misfortune and other times it hates you even if you are playing Luck.
[ March 25, 2004, 06:30: Message edited by: Zen ]
|

March 25th, 2004, 11:31 AM
|
 |
Captain
|
|
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: within 200km of Ulm
Posts: 919
Thanks: 27
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
|
|
Re: Big Problem - Unbalanced random events
Hmm, the discussion seems to go back to its former topic...  which was not my intention when I brought it up again:
I know that random events are controversial, and I dont see that there is even necessity to agree upon that! All I was asking for is whether there are more people like me who like severe random events after turn 10, say, but not before turn 10...
Of course, I can avoid the impact of early random events by setting a high number of starting provinces, but this is also a slight disadvantage for research-based strategies...
[ March 25, 2004, 09:37: Message edited by: Chazar ]
|

March 25th, 2004, 12:07 PM
|
Second Lieutenant
|
|
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 510
Thanks: 24
Thanked 31 Times in 12 Posts
|
|
Re: Big Problem - Unbalanced random events
Quote:
Originally posted by Zen:
Order3/Misfortune3 can still work like it used to, due to the factors of luck in general. But that is part of the game, if you play with Luck you tend to play with the dice. Sometimes it likes you even when you are playing Misfortune and other times it hates you even if you are playing Luck.
|
Which is my major issue. 120 points is a LOT to invest in a scale in return for something that makes you a bit luckier on average in the NUMBER of lucky to unlucky events while still hitting you with extremely unfortunate random events every now and again. It certainly does not fit with the description of a land with a high luck scale: "Good events are common, and no one seems to have any bad luck". I can assure you that flooding, brigandry, and violent earthquakes feel like bad luck to most of the population
Make luck 3 have 0% chance of major bad events and an exceedingly low probability of minor bad events, that's what I say.
On a related issue, it seems from a limited amount of tests that the number of random events per turn is limited to 3? (a small number, at any rate) no matter how large the country is? If that is true, it certainly favours misfortune over luck, as the worst misfortune events are those that affect single provinces, and the more provinces you have, the greater chance that a poor irrelevant one is targeted, while the best luck events are those that give gold and/or gems, which are not tied to specific provinces and which lose relative value the longer you play. In other words, the larger the country, the less negative effect from choosing misfortune and the less positive effect from choosing luck.... That just seems so.. wrong.
I hope I am mistaken on this issue.
[ March 25, 2004, 10:07: Message edited by: Peter Ebbesen ]
__________________
When I said Death before Dishonour, I meant alphabetically.
|

March 25th, 2004, 12:24 PM
|
Corporal
|
|
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 96
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
|
|
Re: Big Problem - Unbalanced random events
Actually the *best* Luck event is the one that adds population to a province. Unfortunately it appears to be tied to Order scale, and is already rare... meaning you're not very likely to see it at all. IMO, that event should be at least as common under high order as the "restless population" even is under turmoil (ie very frequent).
|

March 25th, 2004, 12:30 PM
|
 |
Captain
|
|
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: within 200km of Ulm
Posts: 919
Thanks: 27
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
|
|
Re: Big Problem - Unbalanced random events
Quote:
Originally posted by Peter Ebbesen:
On a related issue, it seems from a limited amount of tests that the number of random events per turn is limited to 3?
|
I am pretty sure that I have read it somewhere here in this forum that the number of random events per player is limited to 3, but I dont know where. Nevertheless I am happy that way... :-)
|

March 25th, 2004, 01:20 PM
|
Second Lieutenant
|
|
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 510
Thanks: 24
Thanked 31 Times in 12 Posts
|
|
Re: Big Problem - Unbalanced random events
Quote:
Originally posted by Zurai:
Actually the *best* Luck event is the one that adds population to a province.
|
I must disagree. It takes an awful number of rounds for a population boost to generate more money that the +500 gold event (and three times as many to beat the +1500 gold). Of course, there is the added impact on resources, the utility of which is highly dependent on exactly which province is targeted.
Quote:
Unfortunately it appears to be tied to Order scale, and is already rare... meaning you're not very likely to see it at all. IMO, that event should be at least as common under high order as the "restless population" even is under turmoil (ie very frequent). [/QB]
|
Which is where we part company. To my mind, bad events should not be very frequent under turmoil IF your domian is lucky.
__________________
When I said Death before Dishonour, I meant alphabetically.
|
Thread Tools |
|
Display Modes |
Hybrid Mode
|
Posting Rules
|
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
HTML code is On
|
|
|
|
|