Big Problem - Unbalanced random events

[Saber Cherry]

Originally posted by Sammual:
I would like to see the larger bad random events limited to Misfortune 3 and scale them down from there. I don't like losseing 1/4 of my capitals population on turn 3 with luck 1.

Yeah, I suggested something like that in another thread - a luck system that would classify all events as major and minor, and yield an overall probability like this:

ML=major lucky event
SL=small lucky event
SU=small unlucky event
MU=major unlucky event

Luck scale values and overall event probabilities (assuming an event occurs):

Luck..ML...SL....|....SU...MU
+3......40....40....|....18....02
+2......32....39....|....26....05
+1......24....36....|....32....08
+0......15....35....|....35....15
-1.......08....32....|....36....24
-2.......05....26....|....39....32
-3.......02....18....|....40....40

So with +1 luck, only 8% of the events would by major unlucky events.

I agree that if I spend 40 points on Luck 1, I want a major reduction in barbarian invasions and vineman uprisings... but I don't really expect that to suddenly make me immune to bad weather, for example=)

-Cherry

[Gandalf Parker]

I know that river provinces affect floods. And season changes affect tornados. But most of the ones people complain about seem to be the ones where a group decides to "remove your oppressive rule" or something like that. These arent affected by scales or game settings as much as by your actions apparently. High taxes, blood hunts, pillaging, Im not sure what but it appears that people bring these onto themselves by pushing too hard and too fast.

[Keir Maxwell]

I virtually never see random events with order 3, misfortune 3, rare events. That being the case the only drawback of misfortune is on my chance of getting hero's.

My complaint is with turmoil/luck races and how that pans out - pretty badly in my tests. So yes the bad events do seem rather devestating.

Cheers

Keir

[Chris Byler]

It looks like there's pretty broad consensus that at least the mass-kill events (flood, emigration, probably others) should be restricted to misfortune provinces only (or should be very rare without misfortune).

Really, how many places have catastrophic flooding every year? The Nile valley and...? And the annual Nile floods didn't kill 1/4 of the population of Egypt every year, either. The only disasters I can think of with that kind of kill rate are major volcanic eruptions (Thera, Vesuvius, Krakatoa), which are once in several centuries for the whole world. Hurricanes don't kill 1/4 the population of Florida (or India). Maybe 1/10.

Now, I don't think that disasters should be eliminated from the game entirely, or even that a disaster every few years (note a year is 12 turns!) is unreasonable - for a strong misfortune scale. A God with a fortune dominion shouldn't have his people troubled with constant floods, earthquakes, barbarian incursions, gangs of troll heroes, etc. - or what use is his divine power over fortune?

So what kind of random events should be able to occur (occasionally) in a forune dominion? Poor harvests (temporary decrease in tax or supply), brigand activity, vandalism (costs gold to repair), increased unrest, superstition (decreased dominion), desertion of some normal (non-[pretender | prophet | mindless | magic | demon | undead]) troops in the province (the chance of an individual unit deserting could be based on morale), etc. One-time or temporary bad events, not permanent cripplers.

Also, there need to be more good events with better effects than the current "small amount of gold or gems". The site creation events are a nice start, but if there is a mass emigration event, why isn't there a mass immigration event, for example? Celebrants of the faith could build you a free temple. An independent mage (of some type that would normally only be recruited in a particular site, e.g. metal orders) could offer you his services.

Turmoil/luck dominions usually result in more effect from bad events than from good ones, even though there are more good events. In order to be balanced against neutral scales (given the income reduction of turmoil), turmoil/luck needs to have events be a net benefit (since luck has hardly any benefits aside from events - crossbreeding and heroes are it, IIRC). Also, misfortune needs to not be neutralized by order; it wasn't allowed in Dom I, why was that changed?

I'd just like to see the order and luck scales balanced to a point that most races could reasonably choose most combinations of those scales. It wouldn't be too bad if (as in Dom I) order/luck was usually a waste of points and turmoil/misfortune was horribly crippling but other combinations worked OK for their point costs.

Maybe order/turmoil shouldn't affect event frequency at all, but only allow/disallow certain events (volunteers for the militia or increased tax revenues would be more common in order, increased unrest, vandalism and rebellions in turmoil). Order is powerful enough for its income benefits. Anyway, I don't think an orderly population is going to be much use against a catastrophic flood.

[Gandalf Parker]

Originally posted by Chris Byler:
It looks like there's pretty broad consensus that at least the mass-kill events (flood, emigration, probably others) should be restricted to misfortune provinces only (or should be very rare without misfortune).

I dont see such a "broad consensus". Most of us seem to say its working as it is. If you dont want events then dont ask for events.

Really, how many places have catastrophic flooding every year? The Nile valley and...? And the annual Nile floods didn't kill 1/4 of the population of Egypt every year, either.

Usually when I get that in a game its because the AI is casting spells at me.

[Jasper]

Originally posted by Chris Byler:
Really, how many places have catastrophic flooding every year? The Nile valley and...? And the annual Nile floods didn't kill 1/4 of the population of Egypt every year, either. The only disasters I can think of with that kind of kill rate are major volcanic eruptions (Thera, Vesuvius, Krakatoa), which are once in several centuries for the whole world. Hurricanes don't kill 1/4 the population of Florida (or India). Maybe 1/10.

Good point. These events shouldn't kill population, so much as make you temporarily lose
income. Rather like the "Good Harvest" events.
Even losing 1/10 of your population to an event is ridiculous for nearly all events.

[Kristoffer O]

The dominion does not only affect the minds of people, it changes the very lands, thus more storms in a land of turmoil, more blizzards in a land of cold and more treasures found in a land of fortune.

The changes in the scales were intended to make the scale effects easy to grasp. At first each scale was to affect one area only. This was not entirely good and now growth and production do increas income for example (not as much as in Dom I though).

Luck and events have not been altered a second time. It bothers me that there is a default setting that everyone feels compulsed to use, but I'm not yet sure what should be done and what effects we wish to avoid and what to add.

[Kristoffer O]

Originally posted by Jasper:
Good point. These events shouldn't kill population, so much as make you temporarily lose
income. Rather like the "Good Harvest" events.
Even losing 1/10 of your population to an event is ridiculous for nearly all events.

A valid point when you consider that we at Illwinter are opposed to ridiculous population growth

[Raen]

Originally posted by Gandalf Parker:
I dont see such a "broad consensus". Most of us seem to say its working as it is. If you dont want events then dont ask for events.

Who asked for events? With Order +1 and events at *rare*, I'm still getting at least a brigand lair a year. Sometimes I'll get an event every month....at "rare," that just seems to me absurd.

IMO you shouldn't have to set a scale at 3 to have events actually be rare....that's presumably what the setting is for.

Again, I see nothing wrong with introducing an additional setting. Those of you happy with the way things are don't have to use it.

[apoger]

>It bothers me that there is a default setting that everyone feels compulsed to use, but I'm not yet sure what should be done and what effects we wish to avoid and what to add.

Trying to fidget the system might be difficult from your perspective. I suggest doing work on mod tools. Given a chance the players will create mods galore. These would be put through much more intensive playtesting than you would normally get in house, and if it is poor you get no blame, only credit for releasing the tools. With many well tested mods out there, most players will be satisfied.

There are many disturbingly dedicated players like Gandalf, Saber Cherry, and myself, who will gladly do the work and take the heat... if you get us ANY significant tools to work with.

If we could edit- Scales, Units (including pretenders), Nations, Spells, and Forts, we could produce a beautiful supply of new content. More content would help sell your core game. I don't see any downside.