Please don't take my toys away!

[johan osterman]

Originally posted by Keir Maxwell:
[QUOTE

...

re extra design points.

The point was relative to Dom1.

In Dom1 most races I designed had Order3/Luck1. I tried luck0 but never had the courage to play it in mutli-player due to concern over the horrific events you can get early in tests.

As an aside I think Johan underestimates the impact of losing population/gold early as the extra early gold is often the difference between expanding fast enough or going under. My experiance of MP suggests that early events (good or bad) have hugely disproportionate impact.

In Dom2 most races I design have order3/misfortune3. Thats 160 extra design ponts over Dom1 and that, in my estimation, is what makes the possibility of a wide range of bless effect races worth trying. Without the points only the most extreme temp races have enough points for the high level starting magic. Its not a question of quantative differrence in race power, as you suggest Jasper, but qualitiative - thats how the bless effects work. Its the level 9 ones the tend to matke the race desing viable or not. Got enough for the effects you need to make the troop type work - yay. Not enough and the race is simply lame. To me the difference in power between a tight race and a bitsa is not 10-20-30% but more like 50-150+% because of the way low casualty expansion feeds upon itself.

...

I really do believe that a formalistic approach to balence which says that every feature should be individualy balenced with every other feature is just plain wrong. Its the overall balence and the possibilities this produces I'm concerned about and not wether certain options are necessary to get a good race. Does it really matter that much if most players take order 3 misfortune 3? I think the extra points from this creates ideas I don't think this strangles ideas. I do think, and have posted elsewhere, that cutting back the worst events is a good idea so I'm not adverse to any change and I am in favour of making turmoil/luck races viable. Its just that some of the changes recommmended would have disastrous implication on the overall balence.

...

Keir

I will answer your post even if you withdraw from the discussion, that way you won't be able to make a witty rejoinder and I will get the Last word.

First of all I still think that the bad luck events are not that much of a problem, not compared with the income loss. The 66% income of turmoil 3 to order 3 dominates the effect of the badluck events themselves. So if order -3 luck +3 is less viable than order +3 luck -3 it is in my mind much more to the constant income loss rather than the effects of negative events. It is highly unlikely that bad events will come remotely close to having as much of a negative impact as the turmoil will. I hope this doesn't come out as sounding condescending, but I believe many dominions players tend to overestimate risk compared to predictable loss, many strategy players seem to be very averse to random factors and I think this is reflected in the negative press the badluck events get. The sense I get from much of the discussion is that players worry more about the hurricanes and floods than they do about the income loss from turmoil.

If I read you correctly your desire is for pretenders with strong bless effects to still be viable. They are so in your mind because viable scale settings are more affordable than they were in dom2. What I think is the problem with your argument is that if other scales were to be changed so that you percieved them as useful as the order scale you would feel compelled to raise them as well. The design points you get by using misfortune 3 you get because you do not consider misfortune 3 detrimental under order 3, you get 120 points for free. Your bless designs hinges on that it is just one scale you consider essential, order. If I shared your estimate of the situation I would draw the conclusion that I should call for more design points and toned down order. If one only made the other settings as useful as you seem to consider order I fail to see why you would not feel compelled to pour design points into them the same way you do with order.

I too wish to see people spending points on pretender magic and bless effects, but I do feel it is unfortunate if it becomes a no brainer to allways go with order +3 luck -3. Since so many players seem to consider order 3 a no brainer it is perhaps a good idea to reduce its effectiveness in some manner. If income is reduced this would cause grumblings in some quarters though. And if the other scales are toned up design points will once again be concentrated in scales rather than pretender magic, which I, and apparantly you as well, do not not desire.

I have more to add but I do not have the time at the moment, so this will have to do for now.

[ November 25, 2003, 17:01: Message edited by: johan osterman ]

[licker]

I think that a solution to this problem lies primarily in the luck scales, not so much the order scales. The issue is that luck +3 is nowhere near potent enough, especially as the bad events dominate the good (even in the 80/20 split) to the point where it isn't just 'risky' to take luck&turmoil, but its suicidal. Over the long run you will lose out on the luck scale alone, without even worrying about your lost income to turmoil.

There have been several suggestions as to how to rebalance the luck scale, and what seems reasonable is for the events to be classified into 'major' and 'minor' or even more gradiations. Then the luck scale should effect the chance of getting major or minor, not just good and bad. Order may be too strong as it is as well, however the easy change there is to not get protection from random events from taking order, but still get the increase in random events from taking turmoil. Now you take order specifically for income, but it won't shield you from the random events (good and bad). You take turmoil specifically to get more random events, and set your luck scale accordingly. This still costs design points for players like Kier so it may not be satisfactory to their world view, but something is out of line in the way that the order and luck scales interact, and something should be done to rectify that.

As an aside...

I'd like to see specific pretenders for each nation (and perhaps theme) who's sole function is to provide high bless effects. I was thinking of something along the lines of a pretender who's magic levels were doubled to determine the bless effects, then I thought that may be a bit too much, so a pretender who had discounted majic picks (somehow...) but who's magic levels were halved for purposes of casting and research. It would be interesting to try a totally tricked out bless race, without having to totally compromise your scales.

[Truper]

I think Johan may have hit the nail on the head when he said many gamers would rather count on the guaranteed income from order, than gamble on income from luck. But just because I share a little of G. Parker's desire to flout the conventional wisdom, I am currently using in MP a design with order 0, Luck +3. We're only on turn 7, which I realize is hardly a sufficent baseline for comparison, but: on turn 2 my worshippers held me a nice little ceremony which raised the dominion of my home province, and since then, I have had one 100 gold event, and one 200 gold event (events are common). A back of the envelope calculation suggests (and I'm too lazy to work it out more precisely) that I am slightly ahead in income compared to what I'd have had with order +3, and I had that little ceremony thrown in as a bonus. I enjoy positive luck scales, and wonder if the folks who enjoy and are good at extensive testing don't miss the boat when they do their tests as an either/or black/white comparison between order 3 misfortune 3 on the one hand, and turmoil 3 luck 3 on the other. I'll be interested to see if one of my fanatic followers can't locate say... a Ring of Wizardry sometime soon

[Gandalf Parker]

Originally posted by Truper:
I enjoy positive luck scales, and wonder if the folks who enjoy and are good at extensive testing don't miss the boat when they do their tests as an either/or black/white comparison between order 3 misfortune 3 on the one hand, and turmoil 3 luck 3 on the other.

There are very different Groups involved and sometimes its hard to pick them out. I like to make reference to the Formula Folk and the Random Map Cult but its not always so cut and dried.

One thing I see come up often in game debates (30 years worth of game debates) is a vary basic difference in opinion over what is or isnt strategy or tactics. Some people (lets call them chess players) feel that balanced maps and no surprises makes for the best strategy game. Others (gamblers?) like to make best tactical use of whats thrown out to work with. Of course most people arent cut-and-dried, they tend to be some of both.

This discussion feels like its headed that way though. Trying to decide which scale is more important to the players, or which ones will be an automatic choice, is difficult to do if its done by one type of player or the other. Those who like their variables set will always feel that order is an automatic choice because it is (for them). Those who like to roll the dice will go toward luck and wonder why anyone takes order at all.

IMHO whats needed is to maybe stretch the scales out abit so that all choices can be used to create a complete strategy for those who want to play that way. So its not so much whether the order takers feel luck is worth anything, just whether they feel order is worth using. And luck needs to be judged by the luck Users. I dont think we want them to both be desireable by both Groups. Just my opinion.

[ November 25, 2003, 16:48: Message edited by: Gandalf Parker ]

[licker]

Originally posted by Truper:
I think Johan may have hit the nail on the head when he said many gamers would rather count on the guaranteed income from order, than gamble on income from luck. But just because I share a little of G. Parker's desire to flout the conventional wisdom, I am currently using in MP a design with order 0, Luck +3. We're only on turn 7, which I realize is hardly a sufficent baseline for comparison, but: on turn 2 my worshippers held me a nice little ceremony which raised the dominion of my home province, and since then, I have had one 100 gold event, and one 200 gold event (events are common). A back of the envelope calculation suggests (and I'm too lazy to work it out more precisely) that I am slightly ahead in income compared to what I'd have had with order +3, and I had that little ceremony thrown in as a bonus. I enjoy positive luck scales, and wonder if the folks who enjoy and are good at extensive testing don't miss the boat when they do their tests as an either/or black/white comparison between order 3 misfortune 3 on the one hand, and turmoil 3 luck 3 on the other. I'll be interested to see if one of my fanatic followers can't locate say... a Ring of Wizardry sometime soon

Well the order/misfortune peole also have 120 more design points than you do with order zero and luck3. I think the idea is that the two scales are not balanced with respect to each other, and since they are directly connected there is a problem. That isn't to say that you can't succeed with your setup, or some more extreme luck based set up, just that over the long run you will need to stay ahead of the distribution of events. Other tests (though they only create a small sample) have shown that from a purely economic viewpoint order3 misforutune3 is the run away winner. It may not be as much fun to play for some people, true (and I'm one of those people), but in a competative environment its superior to the other choices.

What I am asking for is for the luck scale to be readdressed, so that it is not as digital as it seems to be now. I want luck to be a comperable choice to order from a competative stand point, even though I don't typically play very competatively

[johan osterman]

Originally posted by licker:

...
What I am asking for is for the luck scale to be readdressed, so that it is not as digital as it seems to be now.
...

There seem to be some misconceptions concerning the luck scale floating around. The major/minor tied to luck scale values events that people are requesting is to a degree present in the game. The 1500gp event is only for luck +3. IIRC the 1000gp is restricted to luck +2. There are events that exists in both common and rare forms where the event is rare at a certain value and common at a more extreme luck scale value. So the luck scale is not digitalised in the way you seem to be suggesting.

Well; the Devil's Advocate question is?

Johan you've had and played the game longer than any of us; you've played with the different situation.

If you wanted to win a MP game; and didn't have any "Fantasy" notions, or "Roleplaying" notions not using Ermor or any other Point Rich race/theme.

What % of the time do you choose Order and what % of the time do you choose Turmoil? Then the same for luck and misfortune.