Luck/Misfortune Nerf.

Gandalf Parker · #1 January 21st, 2007, 03:27 PM

Why is that unsatisfying?
The only alternatives I can think of would be a bank that holds it, or maybe the ability to create/uncreate items such as fire gems. Anything I can think of doesnt strike me as being preferable to creating expensive long-term units where you would at least get something back for leaving your investment there over time (I dont see dom banks paying interest).

VedalkenBear · #2 January 21st, 2007, 04:04 PM

While the talk about banking is rather amusing, I think it's also somewhat beside the point.

Personally, I think GP's idea of a more quantified scale of events has a great deal of merit. And yes, I do think there should be a 'no random events whatsoever' point on that scale. Clearly, that would make the Luck scale be worthless in-game. A further option would be to have a 'luck quality' scale in addition to a 'luck quantity' scale. In this case, the luck scale cost would be a function of the 'quality' and not the 'quantity'. (After all, currently we can change the quantity of events and that does not change the overall value of the Luck scale.)

Personally, I find myself taking Order3 Luck3 a lot in games. Yes, it's a lot of points, but I despise negative events, and this is the setting that absolutely minimizes the chance of a bad event. Giving me an option to remove random events (and the accompanying scale) from the game would actually increase my options for playing, which can only be a good thing.

Meglobob · #3 January 21st, 2007, 04:23 PM

Quote:

VedalkenBear said:
Personally, I find myself taking Order3 Luck3 a lot in games. Yes, it's a lot of points, but I despise negative events, and this is the setting that absolutely minimizes the chance of a bad event. Giving me an option to remove random events (and the accompanying scale) from the game would actually increase my options for playing, which can only be a good thing.

I agree with the order3, luck3 combo. Good scales with a nation who has poor or non-existant sacreds is a excellent strategy. Some of my MP's are very funny at the moment, alot of players are taking double/triple bless who means they have appalling scales. So rather than fight them I sign a 3 turn warning non-aggression pact and just develop/build in peace while there own dominion destroys them. Its amusing as my scouts pick up yet another province that has been attacked/revolted etc...

However I love the entire luck/misfortune mehanic it really spices the game up and reduces predictablity.

HoneyBadger · #4 January 21st, 2007, 04:29 PM

Gandalf, by "unsatisfying" I mean "artificially imposed". Your method no doubt does work, but it doesn't work in a way that is logical or meaningful. It only works because the program is written in a certain way, not because there's some kind of "Knights of the Order of the Grasping Usury" do you see what I mean?

thejeff · #5 January 21st, 2007, 06:59 PM

When I asked about strategy I wasn't trying to critizise it, just trying to figure out how you got into the situation.

How do you get your income so low? With a high fire gem income, so you've obviously taken provinces. You said another bad event had trashed your capital income, but what about other provinces? (And if that was the plague you mentioned earlier, that's "lose 1/5th population", not "down to 1/5th" right? Bad, but hardly no income?)
Really bad other scales? Turmoil? Sloth?

Without some idea how you got there, I can't see how this is such a problem. Other than maybe AE Ermor/Dreamlands R'lyeh, I've never seen a position where I wouldn't be able to afford a lab in a turn, 2 at most if I had another income loss event.

HoneyBadger · #6 January 21st, 2007, 10:50 PM

Oh yeah, I definitely had trashed scales, and I didn't take it as a criticism. Like I said, it wasn't a "real" game/strategy, just a potential one. Thanks

Wyatt Hebert · #7 January 22nd, 2007, 10:49 AM

Well, as far as the lab burning down in _year_ 2, that's perfectly understandable... it shouldn't be considered a catastrophic loss at any point in the game, really. Given that with Luck 1, you still have ~33% chance of any event being negative and a greater chance of events occurring, this should be expected. Granted, HoneyBadger, you were saying that you were just testing a strategy... but this should still have been foreseen, imo.

One idea to implement your earlier idea would be protection from _catastrophic events in your capital_ for 2*(3+Luck Scale) turns. So, with Luck 0, you would have no catastrophic events for 6 turns... Luck 3 gives you a year, and Misfortune 3 is courting disaster from turn 2.

Otoh, it makes Misfortune 3 worth, imo, much more than a single tick from Misfortune 2, so it would make Order 3/Misfortune 2 a much more attractive choice for scales.

Just a few thoughts I had while reading...

Wyatt

thejeff · #8 January 22nd, 2007, 11:40 AM

Note that he also had trashed scales, so he probably had Turmoil 3, which boosts the chances of any events, and thus of bad ones.

I think, unless this can be shown to be a realistic problem for a viable strategy, the current system is fine. A couple of turns protection from the most catastrophic events in capitals is sufficient.

Everything else may hurt, especially if it comes at a crucial moment in a war, but can be dealt with.