Luck/Misfortune Nerf.

HoneyBadger · #1 January 16th, 2007, 05:02 PM

I prefer Luck 0 as having a year off of both, because otherwise, why would I ever choose Luck 0? Luck 0 should be a strategic option, but if it's just the same as Misfortune 1 or Luck 1 as far as solving the problem at hand, then why choose it?

Gandalf Parker · #2 January 16th, 2007, 05:17 PM

I wouldnt say that none overlap. The conversations about order often overlap with growth for maximum preferred effect. And growth with temperature.

On the luck 0:
it seems that taking no +/- should be the natural real world default of some good and some bad. That feels right but the problem with that thinking is that then +3 would be "no bad for x turns" and -3 becomes "no good for x turns". Id have to think about that.

It could be that luck 0 is no events at all good or bad for x turns. That also would seem that +3 means no bad for x turns, and -3 becomes no good for x turns.

Maybe it could be that all settings get no events at all, good or bad, for x turns. But then the X would have to be small enough to not have to monstrous an effect on small-map blitzes. I dont like game suggestions that seem to think that all games are small-map blitzes but I also dont want to ignore that many MANY games are that type.

HoneyBadger · #3 January 16th, 2007, 05:38 PM

"It could be that luck 0 is no events at all good or bad for x turns. That also would seem that +3 means no bad for x turns, and -3 becomes no good for x turns."

I think that's exactly what I'm saying, Gandalf, although not in the exact words by any means. As per Luck 0 being the default of that-no good and no bad events for x amount of turns, I'm perfectly fine with that, and I think I suggested something of the sort up there too

Thanks a lot.

Gandalf Parker · #4 January 16th, 2007, 05:55 PM

Sorry, I was just trying to gather my stand on it from what all I had read.
But also, I think that might be what we already have. Though it might be as short as a 3 turn safety. I havent tested it lately.

HoneyBadger · #5 January 16th, 2007, 06:15 PM

Nothing to be sorry about, I just wasn't sure if you were confused or not about what I was saying.

It's definitely not 3 turns, I've had bad things happen on turn 2.

PDF · #6 January 20th, 2007, 11:41 AM

Quote:

Gandalf Parker said:
Sorry, I was just trying to gather my stand on it from what all I had read.
But also, I think that might be what we already have. Though it might be as short as a 3 turn safety. I havent tested it lately.

Can you confirm ? I'm positive about the lack of "safety period" in 3.00-3.02 (I've seen Plagues on turn 2 on several occasions), but not after.