Big Problem - Unbalanced random events

[Mandalore]

You could have appointed your starting commander as the prophet, and had him build your temple.

Your right, I could have. I didn't think of that at the time, but if it ever happens again I will remember that.

Thanks!

[PrinzMegaherz]

Another thing to consider is the definition of luck.

If you play ermor, you wont mind population loss events that much. However, getting Militia units that demand upkeep will quickly reduce that 200 gold you saved for a temple to zero. Definitly no luck.

Anyway, everyone complains about those money gain/population loss events. So what would you like? Population gain/loss events or money gain/loss events? Money loss events can easily be avoided by having no money at the end of the turn. On the other hand, Illwinter already said that population gain events are out of the question.

So, what do you propose?

[ March 29, 2004, 13:44: Message edited by: PrinzMegaherz ]

[Wyatt Hebert]

With all respect to the designer (and I'm actually on your side for this one, honestly), I think a real issue involved is simply that if I pay 120 points for Luck3, it is still possible (if not likely) that I will take a 25% Income loss in my capital first turn, which means that my start is slower and, from what I've heard, can be a death knell in MP.

To rephrase, if I'm taking Turmoil 3, I've worked that into my battle/strategic plan. Taking Luck 3 and getting too many negative events early (especially if they are nasty ones) can really skew the battle plan. And, please note, that if I don't spend those points, it is a case that it's more likely to happen.

Just my thoughts.

Wyatt

[Cainehill]

Originally posted by johan osterman:
Many players tend to overvalue losses compared to gains (and I would argue that both Mr Cainehill and Mr Montya in this thread are guilty of this), [/QB]

Well, maybe. Turn 10, I lose 40% population (around 9000). Turn 11 - my VQ doesn't attack. Turn 12 - +1500 gold, magic item, and "huge amount of XXX gems".

I admit, that luck event overshadowed the population loss - and my population _still_ doesn't have nails in their shoes.

[PvK]

I think the events are ok. Another thing to keep in mind is that even if you buy high Luck and Order scales, you also have to keep those scales active over your important provinces, since the provinces scales determine what happens - not your base dominion scales.

Some possible ideas though:

* Since the random events are partly supposed to be the side-effect of a war between the gods, it would make sense, promote fairness, and reduce frustration, to limit their occurrance during the first year or so of play.
For example, two checks could be made for each potential random event:
1) If the event severity number is greater than the current turn number (or perhaps, half the current turn number), the event doesn't happen.
2) Roll 1d10 or 2d7 (or maybe 2d7 plus event severity * 2 ) against the current turn number - if the roll is higher, the event doesn't happen.

* The "rain kills 25%" event seems odd because rain isn't generally that deadly. Rain of infected blood, yes. Rain of molten lava, yes. Asteroid strike, yes. Unprecedented monsoon rains causing massive uncontrolled floods, yes. Plague of [random color] death, yes. But just rain? No. Dull but deadly? I'd suggest replacing the plain rain with a random dozen other very-deadly-sounding descriptions, for variety and so it sounds more appropriate.

* The "population are leaving the province" would be nice if some of the population would also arrive someplace else.

PvK

[jaif]

I could think of a few things that could be done here:

1) Like I said, reduce the percentage of pop hits. It feels out of place to me.

2) Why can't "travellers from afar" decide to settle in a province? It needn't be a big number, but plopping down 500 new settlers from off-map into a province would be neat.

3) An at-start moratorium on *all* events as an option from 1 to 10, with events starting on turn X.

Just some thoughts.

-Jeff

[Peter Ebbesen]

The most important point as I see it is that the real level of luck, what the player will feel as lucky or not is not really determined by the luck scale at all.

With +3 luck and other negative scales, the player is going to see a veritable horde of catastrophes as many good events are prevented from happening and many negative are made possible. It may be that the player overall gets more positive than negative events, but the door is open for all but the most nasty events while many positive are prohibited.

Contrariwise, at -3 luck and very positive scales, while bad events are more frequent, some bad events cannot happen because the country's other scales are too positive.

As such, luck is a magnifier on the other scales, not a scale with an inherent worth (unless you are into void summoning or cross breeding).

And that is a LOT to pay 120 nation points for (luck+3) if it means that your other scales are less fabulous.


The issue is compounded by the 3 random event limit, as it means that, unlike all other scales, the effects of the luck scale does not scale with the number of provinces owned.

If you invest in order, production, or growth - you are benefiting all your provinces each and every turn with a tangible benefit. Likewise heat/cold for those that use it. Even magic, as it affects the MR and research of all creatures whereever your domain holds sway. And it works the other way as well, take negative scales, and you suffer in each and every province each turn.

Only luck is an exception.

Whether you have 3 provinces or 100, you will only get 3 random events. As such, the larger your country grows, the less relative negative impact you get from misfortune and the less relative positive impact you get from luck. Once you reach the threshold where you receive 3 random events per turn, the effect of luck peters out with further expansion - which makes those 120 points for luck+3 even less worth, if you expect to run a big nation.

In other words, luck is not just an exception, its functioning principle is very nearly the opposite of the other scales'!

Get rid of that 3 event cap, please.

[PvK]

I thought there was an immigrant event - just apparently rare. Am I mis-remembering?

EDIT: Good points, Peter. That probably has a lot to do with why I haven't seen lots of bad events in my Lucky games compared to others. I didn't lower my other scales much in those games, and probably the people who got nailed by bad events did. Though, I think Luck does also increase the odds and/or possibility of some of the best positive events, so there would still be some effect even after the "threshold" is reached. I agree though that it'd be nice to remove or tweak the 3-event maximum.

PvK

[ March 29, 2004, 22:18: Message edited by: PvK ]

[Peter Ebbesen]

Originally posted by PvK:
I thought there was an immigrant event - just apparently rare. Am I mis-remembering?

EDIT: Good points, Peter. That probably has a lot to do with why I haven't seen lots of bad events in my Lucky games compared to others. I didn't lower my other scales much in those games, and probably the people who got nailed by bad events did. Though, I think Luck does also increase the odds and/or possibility of some of the best positive events, so there would still be some effect even after the "threshold" is reached. I agree though that it'd be nice to remove or tweak the 3-event maximum.

PvK

Oh, it certainly does. Having good scales in general AND a good luck scale will regularly give you some VERY good events. It is just that the way it seems to be working currently, unless you are cross-breeding/void-summoning or already have maxed most other scales, it is almost a no-brainer on any decent sized map not to invest in luck but to invest in other scales instead - or to take an extra magic path to 3 or 4 for the 120 points.

There are exceptions to this rule, such as the -3/-3/-3/-3/+3/+3 Ermor setup, which funnels nearly all good events into gem events (which is exactly what Ermor needs) and where the majority of the bad events (and you will get many bad events) don't really matter because people are already dead anyhow, but they remain rare exceptions to the general case.

[ March 29, 2004, 22:37: Message edited by: Peter Ebbesen ]

[Argitoth]

has anyone suggested that random events be totally disabled for the first 10 turns of the game? or 5 turns or 15 turns? maybe that could be a new game option. feel free to twist, add, subract, deform, and/or reform this idea.

[ March 30, 2004, 01:46: Message edited by: Argitoth ]