Please don't take my toys away!

[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.

[licker]

Originally posted by johan osterman:

quote:

---

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.

---

Great, that's good to know.{edit- though I actually should have known that since I now recall an older discussion about it... anyway, my sugestion is that perhaps these classifications, especially on the bad event side be reevaluated} But how is it on the bad event side? I've gotten the lost a temple and 1/4 pop gone without misfortune +3, I think that's the issue that I have right now, the bad events that crop up even without misfortune +3 just seem to overwhelm the good events (even with higher levels of luck).

Though I will admit that I've not done alot of testing on this, but others have, and their results are out there.

Also quickie on the Lady of Fortune... what and how exactly does she effect luck? I've had her for 40+ turns now and only had one good event happen in her province (though with Order +3 I suppose that may negate some of her ability...)

[ November 25, 2003, 17:54: Message edited by: licker ]