Luck/Order scales after 2.06 Patch [Archive]

Truper

January 12th, 2004, 08:05 PM

IMHO luck is now a beautiful thing. I have run 10 turns of a test using Order 1, Luck 3. In those 10 turns I have had: The province defense of my capital increased by 10. A 100 gold event. A 500 gold event. A set of militia join. A group of immigrants increase the pop of one of my provinces by 25%. No negative events yet.

I don't think this adjustment does much to address the issues.

A better method would be to remove the more dire events. There aren't corresponding good events. Plus nobody likes them. They do nothing to help the game, and they are unbalancing the luck/order scales. I don't understand this. There *are* corresponding good events. And removing the dire events would increase the incentive to take misfortune 3, further unbalancing the luck/order scales, not helping to balance them.

ywl

January 12th, 2004, 08:11 PM

I tested for only 20 turns, both Order+3/Luck-3 and Chao-3/Luck+3 were killers. I have only the capital and the population in both case was decrease to 20k by random events. Two babarians (in one turn!) for the Order, one emigration and one plague for the Luck.

I didn't do any recruiting and let the gold accumulate (the upkeep is similar for both). Overall, the Luck nation has more gold left in the treasury, some random gems and a minor items.

In this case, Order might give you comfort for having a larger income - but I'm not totally sure it has the edge.

Saber Cherry

January 12th, 2004, 08:22 PM

Wow, I was testing luck 3, chaos 3 with Abysia... 2 good events until turn 6, then on turn 7 I got a magic item, hero, celebrant, AND... 1/4 of my population died from rain. So far, not good at all.

..then a witch cursed some units, then a quake destroyed the temple (by turn 19).

[ January 12, 2004, 18:25: Message edited by: Saber Cherry ]

SurvivalistMerc

January 12th, 2004, 08:37 PM

I am a bit with apoger on this one, Kristoffer.

I wouldn't mind if the events were very bad, such as loss of half your tax revenues for the turn or something like that. Even a single-time loss of 500 (if you have 500 more than troop cost) would be ok with me. Because that corresponds to a good event. I think to some folks, "balancing" these scales would mean that for every bad event that can happen to you at luck-0, there is a corresponding good event that is equal in benefit to the detriment of the bad event and equal in permanence to the permanence of the bad event (and vice versa).

Maybe you lose 100 gp, some gems, and a magical item. Or you lose your best item in the lab.

All of my suggestions have one thing in common: they are very temporary. It's nothing you can't recover from. You haven't lost 1/4 your population in your home province due to flooding.

An alternate idea would be to let your luck scale affect where a bad event occurs or the extent of the bad event. Example: Unless you are -3 luck, you can't have a population loss event in the most populous 20% of your provinces. Unless you have -2 or worse luck, Bogus the Troll, if he comes, won't come on top of your largest army or in your most "valuable" 20% of provinces.

I think what has a lot of folks "turned off" to luck is that even with beneficial luck scales some really horrible events occur. And luck costs a lot of nation points. So you sort of figure you've bought some sort of "insurance" at a price and then something really bad happens and you get unhappy about it. On the other hand, if you took misfortune and got those 120 points from luck-0, you figure that you deserve for things like that to happen to you in your game. Or maybe that's just me.

Saber Cherry

January 12th, 2004, 08:41 PM

OK, on turn 45 Abysia (Luck Turmoil) had the ancient presence event. Even though hundreds of militia had joined my army and the province defense had been boosted 3 times to 55 (HUGE defending army of abyssians, humanbreds, and militia) the invading mandragoras won and captured the capitol. And of course the population was reduced to 1000.

Atlantis (Misfortune Order) had fewer events, no major bad ones, and was much better off. Population was still 30K (rather than Abysia's 22k and later 1k), gold in the bank was 6.1k (abysia has 1.9k), and they had still gotten 14 random gems rather than Abysia's 69 random gems.

In conclusion:

Unless positive luck scales are immune (or highly resistant) to major negatives, I think turmoil-luck is too unsafe to consider except for Ermor / Pangaea.

ywl

January 12th, 2004, 08:42 PM

Originally posted by Saber Cherry:
Wow, I was testing luck 3, chaos 3 with Abysia... 2 good events until turn 6, then on turn 7 I got a magic item, hero, celebrant, AND... 1/4 of my population died from rain. So far, not good at all.

..then a witch cursed some units, then a quake destroyed the temple (by turn 19). Witch cursing some units is a mixed event. You get gems out of it.

Saber Cherry

January 12th, 2004, 08:46 PM

Originally posted by SurvivalistMerc:
I think what has a lot of folks "turned off" to luck is that even with beneficial luck scales some really horrible events occur. And luck costs a lot of nation points. Yes - the problem with paying for good luck is that you still have bad luck. If I pay for a lucky domain, I don't expect my capitol to collapse from bad luck without any enemy action http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif I'd pay for good luck if it protected me from that sort of thing, but I suspect that turmoil/luck has more catastrophies than order/misfortune... I just can't analyze it for certain because I don't understand how the luck percentages work.

SurvivalistMerc

January 12th, 2004, 08:50 PM

SaberCherry,

It may be that as an underwater nation Atlantis was immune to flooding.

The ancient presence event may require magic scales. I find that a number of unlucky events are averted by taking no magic or drain in your scales.

Of course, I'm still a relative novice at the game compared to most of you.

apoger

January 12th, 2004, 08:57 PM

>Can you tell me what you are doing to test it?

I make a set of pretenders, 3 with Order-3 luck-3, 3 with Order-3 Luck-0, 3 with Order-3 Misfortune-3, ect... all the combos.

Then I make a game with a bunch of these gods.
I set the starting army/pretender on patrol (undoes unrest, defends versus random attacks).
I name a prophet.
Then I host 15,30, and 60 turns.
At each stop I note the population, income, and treasury. On turn 60 I also check for items, and heros.

It's not conculsive, and yes having extra territory would help, but it gives me a good idea of what will happen.

apoger

January 12th, 2004, 09:04 PM

>So your solution to misfortune being a no brainer is making it better?

>I take it you would prefer to leave misfortune without effect so you could have high incomes and many events that are mainly good

No, but I see luck/misfortune differently than you guys.

Good Event: Gain a lab
Bad Event: Lose lab

On the surface these look equal and symetric.
However the lost lab will often happen at a protected location where mages are being produced and research is being done. The gained lab occurs at a random spot that is vastly less likey to be helpful. Effectively, losing a lab is much more hurtful than gaining a lab is helpful. The luck tables you are using don't account for this at all, and this skews things towards bad luck.

Furthermore there are events like losing 1/3 of a population or being attacked by powerful armies. These events are much worse and more common, than their opposite effects.

Honestly, we could agrue forever about this.
What I'll do is play with the mod tools and see if I can make a formula that make me happy. That way everyone wins. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif

SurvivalistMerc

January 12th, 2004, 09:11 PM

I agree, apoger. And it will be nice if the mod tools eventually let you decide how to limit the unlucky and lucky events.

And just in real estate, it's all about location, location, location with regard to luck and unluck events.

If you were really "lucky," that new lab would be discovered at a location where it will enable you to recruit a new type of mage that you don't already have access to. (Early in the game, it might be in a druid province.) Location is an element of luck that isn't affected by the scales. For instance, the Bogus event is supposed to be unlucky, but if it happens in the one border province you share with a mighty nation that just declared war on you, then maybe it's not such a bad event after all.

SurvivalistMerc

January 12th, 2004, 09:23 PM

Has anyone gotten heroes with -2 luck? I don't seem to, even though folks say you are supposed to. I just figured I'd ask since folks are doing lots of tests right now.

ywl

January 12th, 2004, 09:27 PM

Originally posted by SurvivalistMerc:
Has anyone gotten heroes with -2 luck? I don't seem to, even though folks say you are supposed to. I just figured I'd ask since folks are doing lots of tests right now. In Dom 1, I heard that you don't get any below luck -1. Some people said luck -2 is the limit in Dom 2. I don't know.

Catquiet

January 12th, 2004, 09:40 PM

Population loss events should kill a set number of people. Multiplied by Misfortune or divided by Fortune.

ywl

January 12th, 2004, 09:44 PM

Originally posted by apoger:
>So your solution to misfortune being a no brainer is making it better?

>I take it you would prefer to leave misfortune without effect so you could have high incomes and many events that are mainly good

No, but I see luck/misfortune differently than you guys.

Good Event: Gain a lab
Bad Event: Lose lab

On the surface these look equal and symetric.
However the lost lab will often happen at a protected location where mages are being produced and research is being done. The gained lab occurs at a random spot that is vastly less likey to be helpful. Effectively, losing a lab is much more hurtful than gaining a lab is helpful. The luck tables you are using don't account for this at all, and this skews things towards bad luck.

Furthermore there are events like losing 1/3 of a population or being attacked by powerful armies. These events are much worse and more common, than their opposite effects.

Honestly, we could agrue forever about this.
What I'll do is play with the mod tools and see if I can make a formula that make me happy. That way everyone wins. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif The same can be said for the unlucky events though. Losing 1/4 of population in the mostly unpopulated mountain province is not significant neither. When your Kingdom get bigger, those population event is less likely to hit home.

But as you said, just have numbers that everybody agreed beforehand. They're now mostly modifiable now.

January 12th, 2004, 10:00 PM

Alex, that is not a very deterministic test.

Luck is modified by terrain. If you wanted to do a realistic test, try getting one of each base type of province (1 Forest, 1 Coast/Riverland, 1 Mountain, 1 Barren/Desert).

Then test.

Then you can more accurately judge the effects of both luck and unluck. Just doing a home province test is more like shooting in the barrel. Because if one of your 'testers' is on a river province/coastline and the other is not, suddenly that coastal province has terrible luck no matter what because it gets hit by flood/hurricanes while the mountain province gets 'good' events like mines.

Gandalf Parker

January 12th, 2004, 10:59 PM

Originally posted by Zen:
Alex, that is not a very deterministic test.

Luck is modified by terrain. If you wanted to do a realistic test, try getting one of each base type of province (1 Forest, 1 Coast/Riverland, 1 Mountain, 1 Barren/Desert).

Then test.
Ouch. Feel free to use the mini map for that. The game doesnt really care what the TGA says so editing the terrains in the .map file would be fast and easy.
http://www.techno-mage.com/~dominion/Dominions2/Mini.tga
http://www.techno-mage.com/~dominion/Dominions2/Mini.map

ywl

January 12th, 2004, 11:05 PM

I got one very interesting lucky event in my test. Basically, it adds another site to the province "The Deepest Cave" that give 1 earth gem per turn. And because of that, I need to fight off a small Troglydate (that trampling underground thing) army.

SurvivalistMerc

January 12th, 2004, 11:21 PM

I think a real test would be to control the entire world except for about 5 provinces (the same ones in each case) and let it run for about 30 or so turns.

Large numbers of provinces seem to dramatically increase the number of events.

The most positive thing about bad luck is that its worst effects are usually delayed until you are winning.

But not always. I've lost my lab in my home province on turn 6 or so if memory serves, and I've had that horrible flood event early on also.

I don't even want to think about ancient presence in the home province. I haven't had that one yet, and I wager it is linked to a positive magic scale, which I seem to seldom use. Drain isn't that hard to overcome if you put a bit of death magic on your pretender. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

January 12th, 2004, 11:52 PM

There is a maximum of 3 Events per turn, so having more than say 10 or so doesn't dramatically increase the frequency.

Keir Maxwell

January 13th, 2004, 12:17 AM

I'm suffering from hay fever so my brain is not working particularily well but here is my two cents (I'll spend a dollar later):

As I remember the old system was order adjusted event frequency by +-10% and luck adjusted the likelyhood of a good/bad event by +-10%.

Turmoil3/luck3 - nothing has changed has it? You get +30% on event frequency and +30% on likelyhood they are good.

Misfortune3/order3 - you now have the normal chance of events instead of -30% and there is a modifier of+30% on the chance they will be bad. Eeeck. I got hit by an earthquake second or third turn with Mictlan Last night and I didn't like it. This is not the sort of thing I want to increase the likelyhood for MP so I'm wary of this choice. Over an empire it could be disastrous and I'm not sure tests on one province mean very much because of this.

Order3/luck0 - chance of events has gone up by+15% as orders event supression has become less effective. Weaker than it used to be but more likely to be chosen.

Order0/luck3 - this has got heaps better with an extra +15% chance of events.

Order3/luck3 - this has got better but it still doesn't appeal much due to the cost and order working against the luck.

Of course more subtle options exist but thats a useful bunch to look at.

Cheap order options have got weaker, order0+ and luck stronger (should be its expensive), and turmoil/luck stayed the same. In general I think we can safely say that races in general have got weaker and so the ones who have stayed the same have got better.

Not what I was hoping for but its more balenced. I had already accepted that my order based dual bless effects races, milking misfortune for free points, were history (one or two of the best might survive without misfortune) so thats not to sad. I'm a bit dissapointed that turmoil/luck races haven't had more of a boost as I was hoping for more possibilities there to make up the loses. I'm not sure we have gained as much as we have lost in terms of race design options. Still need to have a better look.

I never felt returning to the old scales was THE answer but it could be part of the answer if high luck could guard you from devesating events - at least in your capital.

Cheers

Keir

[ January 13, 2004, 00:08: Message edited by: Keir Maxwell ]

SurvivalistMerc

January 13th, 2004, 12:47 AM

I'm hoping that they will eventually let us mod the events. I can come up with events of my own, and I might produce a Survivalist Mod of just the luck scale and events that folks might decide they like enough to use. I think it would be fun. And I would limit the worst catastrophes to misfortune 3 such that those who want to reap points out of misfortune would want to stop at 2.

I would also generally mod up the national heroes...say double their hps and increase their defense and protection. So that luck would be desirable to get the heroes faster. As things stand now, some races get a lot more out of their heroes than others, making losing the heroes something some races can do rather cavalierly. I think that, while some heroes should be more powerful than others, even race by race, the heroes should be good enough that no race would cavalierly cast them aside but would rather realize they are making a choice with positive and negative consequences.

Jasper

January 13th, 2004, 02:56 AM

I agree the Order scale balance is better, but still off. I actually think Luck is ok now compared to the scales other than Order; bad events are still effectively more prevalent than good ones, but that just shifts the scale so it's not zero centered.

Drop Order's economic effect down to to perhaps +/- 5% and I think it'd be fine. As it stands now Order is IMHO still clearly the "must have" thing to spend points on.

SurvivalistMerc

January 13th, 2004, 05:09 AM

I actually think that the scales could be made such that the points which they either cost or produce are non-linear.

Turmoil could give more nation points than order costs. And the third order could be made more expensive. I guess that each person has a break-even point for all the scales.

The only thing is that not everyone's break-even point is the same. I like order and misfortune. So if I mod the scales, I might make order cost more, turmoil give more nation points, luck cost less, the heroes more powerful, and misfortune give fewer nation points. Just a thought. I'm not even sure you can mod them in this way.

My feeling is that the scales need not be balanced with respect to one another, only with respect to the total nation points they yeild.

Keir Maxwell

January 13th, 2004, 05:26 AM

Originally posted by SurvivalistMerc:
I actually think that the scales could be made such that the points which they either cost or produce are non-linear.

I'm not even sure you can mod them in this way.
Don't think so. You can mod the effect of a scale upon the attribute of the game that it presently modifiers - ie reduce order to 5% extra tax.

I will be sticking with the existing scales structure for the War of the Ring mod - there will be enough to get used to without complicating ones understanding of race design and its impacts. I have no objection to mods that alter the existing game balence but I don't want to move that way until I have a far better understanding of dom2 than I presently do. The different but similar relationship to Dom1 have made it quite tricky for me to get a good feel as many dom1 reflexes remain.

Cheers

Keir

Zapmeister

January 13th, 2004, 05:33 AM

I think the main issue, for me, is that the person taking Luck is not significantly luckier than the person taking Misfortune, because of the actual events.

I now agree with whoever-it-was that said that it's the events themselves, rather than the scales, that need the most attention (or words to that effect).

SurvivalistMerc

January 13th, 2004, 05:37 AM

Zapmeister,

I think I was one of the folks who said that a while back. But I am probably not the only one to reach that conclusion.

January 13th, 2004, 05:46 AM

I believe alot of the supposed 'imbalance' could be cleaned up with a reweighting of the luck scale. Or some sort of additive effect with it.

The main complaint, that I can see is the long term detriment of a bad event vs the 'instant gratification' of the good event.

Change the 1/4 population bad event to a single -500 gold, -250 Production event in tune with the corresponding good event and you more than likely wouldn't see it as a target for comparison.

If it's possible, bumping the population cutting event to +2 Luck and below and adding in a one shot -gold -resource event would more than likely calm a bit of the 'bad events are bad' talk.

Truth be told I prefer this way. It balances out some of the Turmoil nations so they are more feasible while not hurting any of the Order gold and making them pay for it with misfortune.

Maybe if some of the events were not so terrain regulated and finding a gold or iron mine in a valley or a barren it might take off some of the edge.

My choice of taking Order/Misfortune has not changed, I am more likely to do so, but I no longer groan at the thought of taking a forced Turmoil theme/nation.

SurvivalistMerc

January 13th, 2004, 04:18 PM

Zen,

My understanding of the 500 gold event is that it is limited to luck +3 or is that not correct?

My least favorite event is actually the barbarian pillage, though it is less devastating than loss of 1/4 or 1/3 population in an unlucky disaster. They are quite common in my territory late in the game. I will sometimes get up to two a turn. I don't mind the knights as much as the barbarians.

The barbarians get to pillage even if they don't win the battle. And they attack civilized areas out of nowhere. It would be nice if (1) no pillaging if they don't win and (2) they can only attack within 2 provinces of (a) an independent province or (b) a province of a nation that has some sort of barbarian theme to it.

All these barbarians coming out of the woodwork in the middle of my order+3 empire in provinces with > 10 provincial defense that have the religious accoutrements of civilization (temples) just doesn't strike me as right. But maybe my imagination is warped in this regard.

Changing that to a knight attack under those circumstances, with no permanent population loss, though they are harder to defeat, would seem more reasonable to me. Knights are civilized. And nobles can rebel and have political disagreements with their overlords.

Arryn

January 13th, 2004, 04:55 PM

Originally posted by SurvivalistMerc:
My understanding of the 500 gold event is that it is limited to luck +3 or is that not correct?Playing as R'yleh I received this event on turn 4 at luck+2. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif

Jasper

January 13th, 2004, 05:29 PM

Does anyone know how the various mages who can avert bad events work? Is there just some sort of percentage such an event is averted if there is a mage in the province? Does it scale with more mages? What are the percentages? Can you tell when misfortune has been averted? etc.

Also, which factions have such mages? I know of at least Midgard, Utgard, and Black Forest.

apoger

January 13th, 2004, 05:45 PM

Two questions involving luck and modding.

#1 Luck scale changes the frequency of events. Right now by 5% per level of scale. I have seen people state that this means that misfortune raises the chances of events and luck supresses. Is this correct? Or is this 5% a positive modifier in both directions? If it isn't a positive modifier in both directions, is there anyway to mod the scale so it can be?

#2 Luck scales currently affect quantity and quality of events. Some players have suggested adding economic modifiers to luck. I'd like to do some experimenting with such ideas (and other scale effects that are non-standard). Is there anyway to do this? Or are we locked into what the scales affect, and only have the ability to wiggle the percentages?

Ok how about a third question that's about mods, but a shard off topic.

#3 The mod tools seems to allow the adjustment of scales via overall numbers that get applied across the board. It has been suggested that it might be good to have the scales ramp up in effect, I.E. instead of Order being a 7% adjustment per level of scale, possibly make it +7% for +1, +12% for +2, and +17 for +3. I am totally unsure if this is a balanced approach, however I want to know if it's even possible to experiment with.

SurvivalistMerc

January 13th, 2004, 06:50 PM

Apoger, I'm not sure, but my belief is that taking any luck scale (in either direction) will increase the frequency of events.

I can't answer your second question.

I like your idea of non-linearity of benefit with the order scale. I find that I take order as much to get rid of those horrible random events as I do to get income out of it. I think I would take order if it were 3% income per tick but -10% random events per tick.

Arryn, that is very good to know. If only the worst events could be limited to very low luck scale as some of the positive events are limited to positive luck scale. Does it come with 250 production points in that province? Or did Zen come up with the 250 production on his own?

Nagot Gick Fel

January 13th, 2004, 07:19 PM

Hmmm, did 4 quick tests, just idling in the capital and generating turns. Settings were Growth+3, Turmoil+3, Luck+3, rest flat, events common.

After 40 turns I had between 11k and 18k pop left. So it seems if you're trying to maximize the frequency and quality of events, you have to accept a death scale like... +15?

Cool! From now on, I think I'll stick with Death+3 with this kind of setup. At least I might get a huge number of death gems from events and from Raven Feast, and summon a bunch of Mound Fiends to raise the biggest army of soulless ever. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon6.gif

ywl

January 13th, 2004, 07:21 PM

Originally posted by Arryn:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by SurvivalistMerc:
My understanding of the 500 gold event is that it is limited to luck +3 or is that not correct?Playing as R'yleh I received this event on turn 4 at luck+2. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif <hr /></blockquote>The 1500 Great Treasure event is supposed to be limited to Luck +3. I'm not sure whether I've seen it. But is there a 1000 gold event also?

I have also the suspicision some other very nice event might also be luck related. For example, the deepest cave event that give you an additional gem site...

Kristoffer O

January 13th, 2004, 08:34 PM

Originally posted by SurvivalistMerc:

Arryn, that is very good to know. If only the worst events could be limited to very low luck scale as some of the positive events are limited to positive luck scale. Does it come with 250 production points in that province? Or did Zen come up with the 250 production on his own? Most events are limited by scale settings. The big barbarian horde requires misfortune 3. Knights misfortune 2. Barbarians unluck 1. If you get one of these events with a neutral or positive luck scale it is a bug.

Other attacks require magic scales or other special settings such as death for the necromancer, growth for the druid etc.

The plague is rare when you have death 1 and common if you have death 3. Famine likewise at 0 and 2 death.

Emmigration (pop moves to a neighboring province) needs turmoil 2 as a common event and 0 as a rare event.

Kristoffer O

January 13th, 2004, 08:38 PM

An enormously wealthy prince dies in your land. Req death 3 luck 2. 1000 gold and magic items.

Fugitive from elludia order 2 magic 2.

Oleg's alchemical device prod 2 magic 2.

Caspar of the cave luck 2 magic 2.

Arryn

January 13th, 2004, 08:38 PM

Originally posted by Kristoffer O:
Emmigration (pop moves to a neighboring province) needs turmoil 2 as a common event and 0 as a rare event. I've gotten this event (as Utgard) with Order +1. Is this a bug?

January 13th, 2004, 08:50 PM

I don't know if it is limited to Luck 3, but I believe it is luck 2 (Don't quote me on it).

Kriss cleared up some of the requirements as you can see http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

The Barbarian Horde is less of an issue to me for the most part, because if it happens to hit your Capital then 99% of the time you will fend it off (The Horde isn't too strong) and not lose too many patrollers. And if it hits a non-production province it's not really that much of an issue to go get it back.

I would like the horde to get stronger as the game progresses http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif Just to tell you how I feel about bad events, the same way I'd like the lucky ones to get stronger (Militia/Flags) to represent some of the power struggle and usefulness/detriment as the game progresses.

Kristoffer O

January 13th, 2004, 09:02 PM

Originally posted by Arryn:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by Kristoffer O:
Emmigration (pop moves to a neighboring province) needs turmoil 2 as a common event and 0 as a rare event. I've gotten this event (as Utgard) with Order +1. Is this a bug? <hr /></blockquote>Sorry, I missed the unrest related Version of the event. If unrest is 20+ it is common to get this event unless you have order 3.

Arryn

January 13th, 2004, 09:05 PM

Originally posted by Kristoffer O:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by Arryn:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by Kristoffer O:
Emmigration (pop moves to a neighboring province) needs turmoil 2 as a common event and 0 as a rare event. I've gotten this event (as Utgard) with Order +1. Is this a bug? <hr /></blockquote>Sorry, I missed the unrest related Version of the event. If unrest is 20+ it is common to get this event unless you have order 3. <hr /></blockquote>Thanks!!! That is extraordinarily useful to know. I've been ignoring unrest unless it hits 80+. Ouch. No wonder I see it so often ... http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/shock.gif

SurvivalistMerc

January 13th, 2004, 09:13 PM

Kristoffer,

Thank you again for clearing up things like this. These things are very helpful to know.

I think you folks have made an amazing game, and I don't want to seem petulent or like someone who is constantly complaining by continuing the luck/order discussion. I hope I'm not coming across that way.

Zen,

The barbarian pillage events pillage your province even if you win the battle. So they fall into the Category of permanent population loss.

I have recently been tinkering with misfortune 2 instead of 3. I have yet to end up with a hero on misfortune 2. But fewer great barbarian hordes are a definite plus.

It would be interesting for someone to calculate the death scale equivalent of the various luck/order settings. I think these tests will demonstrate that population loss luck events may well have more (generally negative) effect on your population than death scale does, regardless of your scales. The death scale effects can be calculated by multiplication.

I agree with you, Zen, that the horde should get stronger as the game progresses. But it shouldn't materialize out of nowhere in the middle of your civilized empire. Of course, that's just my opinion. And it shouldn't get to pillage unless it wins. Which it will probably do if it's strong unless it lands on top of a large army.

Arryn,

I have gotten this event with order +3. But it may be that what is checked is the scale of the province, not the scale of the pretender.

ywl

January 13th, 2004, 09:23 PM

Originally posted by Kristoffer O:

Fugitive from elludia order 2 magic 2.

I think I saw this when my god was Order 3, Magic 0. I didn't check the scale of the land though...

Keir Maxwell

January 13th, 2004, 10:38 PM

Arryn I would suggest that you look how much gold and porduction you lose by having unrest at 80+. I play with 1 unrest as acceptable and lower tax to get rid of anythign else.

Having played turmoil3/luck3 races I bit I think there is something very wrong with peoples tests - I don't find my home province gets devestated. I suspect that a large part of the problem is doing the test with only one province so all events occur in that province. I think luck is just to complicated for a one province test to be that useful. To repeat I have been playing turmoil/luck races and they do alright. Sure they have not been up to the old order/misfortune standards but they don't destroy themselves with bad luck as some peoples tests would seem to indicate.

Cheers

Keir

Kristoffer O

January 13th, 2004, 10:41 PM

Events are tied to the land in which they appear.

January 13th, 2004, 10:46 PM

Hmm. Guess I haven't been hit by enough "Barbarian Hordes" http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif How much do they pillage on average that you can see?

If it's a dramatic amount (say 1000+) I could see that as falling in line with a moderate population hit and if the pillaging could be changed (but maybe keep the unrest hit) unless they would be an acceptable solution.

Jasper

January 13th, 2004, 10:48 PM

Originally posted by Kristoffer O:
Most events are limited by scale settings. The big barbarian horde requires misfortune 3. Knights misfortune 2. Barbarians unluck 1. If you get one of these events with a neutral or positive luck scale it is a bug.

Other attacks require magic scales or other special settings such as death for the necromancer, growth for the druid etc.

The plague is rare when you have death 1 and common if you have death 3. Famine likewise at 0 and 2 death.

Emmigration (pop moves to a neighboring province) needs turmoil 2 as a common event and 0 as a rare event. This might explain why luck seems more fickle in Dom 2, as I tended to spend many more points on positve scales in Dom 1. Plus I always take Turmoil 3 when picking Luck 3.

Arryn

January 13th, 2004, 10:53 PM

Originally posted by Keir Maxwell:
Arryn I would suggest that you look how much gold and porduction you lose by having unrest at 80+. I play with 1 unrest as acceptable and lower tax to get rid of anythign else.Playing as Utgard, I've been running a gold surplus of 1500+/month, which I can only put to use by increasing province defenses. My 150+ provinces are all at 21, and quite a few are at 30-50. Gold just isn't that useful in this particular game (the one where I have provinces with high unrest in odd spots). I wouldn't dream of allowing such unrest playing, say, R'yleth, where I'm always desperate for gold. As for production losses, I haven't seen all that bad a hit there. I crank out Jotun Huskarls/Spearmen at a nice pace. Too bad you cannot buy gems, as this is my only limiting factor ... http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif

Still, I've only been playing the game for a week and a half, so I have quite a bit yet to learn!

Cheers! http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon6.gif

Jasper

January 13th, 2004, 10:54 PM

Originally posted by Keir Maxwell:
Having played turmoil3/luck3 races I bit I think there is something very wrong with peoples tests - I don't find my home province gets devestated. I suspect that a large part of the problem is doing the test with only one province so all events occur in that province. I think luck is just to complicated for a one province test to be that useful. To repeat I have been playing turmoil/luck races and they do alright. Sure they have not been up to the old order/misfortune standards but they don't destroy themselves with bad luck as some peoples tests would seem to indicate.I agree. I don't get hit that bad, as once you have alot of provinces, mostly of lesser value, the effect of such events is typically less. With Luck/Turmoil it really pays to expand quickly, and to have a strong dominion.

The biggest hit I see with Turmoil/Luck is the HUGE (gigantic! enormous!) base income loss, for which luck doesn't even come close to offering something of comeasurate value in return.

Jasper

January 13th, 2004, 10:56 PM

Originally posted by Arryn:
Playing as Utgard, I've been running a gold surplus of 1500+/month, which I can only put to use by increasing province defenses.Why not buy more forts and labs, so you can spend the extra gold on mages? This is what is typically done in multiplayer.

January 13th, 2004, 10:57 PM

Hrm. I've tried always taking Turmoil 3 with Luck 3, but I just found I can't cope with the loss of income (I feel like the kid riding the short bus). That may just be my bias though. I've gone to taking the minimum of required Turmoil then it's not nearly so destructive to your economy (as most are Turmoil 1, though Barbarian Kings is Turmoil 2 and believe me, it's ugly).

I believe your suggestion of having Pangaea immune to the Turmoil scale is a fantastic one and they should implement it. Heres to hoping.

Arryn

January 13th, 2004, 10:57 PM

Originally posted by Jasper:
Plus I always take Turmoil 3 when picking Luck 3. How do you deal with the unrest caused by this? I tried it once (as Jotunheim) and I had massive problems with crippled income due to having to reduce taxes so much. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/confused.gif

Kristoffer O

January 13th, 2004, 10:58 PM

Some events (ill omen and rain of toads) increase misfortune. This might increase the chance of future bad events.

Jasper

January 13th, 2004, 11:06 PM

Whether an event is good/bad seems to be determined by the Luck of the province having the event -- but who's Order and Luck determines the frequency of a nation's events in the first place? Is it the Preteder's scales? The capitols? Some sort of weighted average of provinces you control?

Just how important is it with Turmoil/Luck to push your dominion so that your provinces actually have Luck 3 in practice? Are perceptions about luck colored by the number of events during expansion being based on potential Turmoil/Luck, while newly conquered provinces still have low Luck?

Arryn

January 13th, 2004, 11:07 PM

Originally posted by Jasper:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by Arryn:
Playing as Utgard, I've been running a gold surplus of 1500+/month, which I can only put to use by increasing province defenses.Why not buy more forts and labs, so you can spend the extra gold on mages? This is what is typically done in multiplayer. <hr /></blockquote>I already have over a dozen mages. More just aren't worth the bother as they don't survive combat, I have a 3:1 margin of research on the #2 AI, and I'm limited by my gem income. I've been spending some on temples, but I get the gold faster than I can move my priests to build more temples where they'll do some good. Such is the "price" of expanding rapidly via conquest. hehe
Guess I may have to just start building temples everywhere.

By the way, many of the strategies people are fond of for multiplayer aren't significant for those of us playing solo ...

SurvivalistMerc

January 13th, 2004, 11:07 PM

Zen,

The population loss tends to vary with the size of the attacking barbarian horde. But I have definitely lost over 1000 at times. That's a permanent loss and it hurts.

Barbarians appear to get a "bonus" to pillaging. Oh joy. And I think you can get the amounts on Sunraybe's site.

Unfortunately, I don't have exact numbers to offer you here. That is because the game doesn't let you go back and see what the population was the previous turn and doesn't tell you how much was killed in the pillage. So I only know when my home province or another major castle province gets hit, if that makes sense.

January 13th, 2004, 11:12 PM

Yes http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif

I understand I don't like bad events any more than the rest, I just don't see the early (Under Turn 10) mass population killers being central to the 'Luck/Misfortune' balance.

If it's turn 11 and a Horde hits me I'm not crippled beyond repair, but if I'm hit by a Flood, Storm or Earthquake on turn 2, 3, or 4. My initial progress is suddenly put in a very real lurch. That's where my main problem with bad events are.

Jasper

January 13th, 2004, 11:13 PM

Originally posted by Zen:
Hrm. I've tried always taking Turmoil 3 with Luck 3, but I just found I can't cope with the loss of income (I feel like the kid riding the short bus). That may just be my bias though. I've gone to taking the minimum of required Turmoil then it's not nearly so destructive to your economy (as most are Turmoil 1, though Barbarian Kings is Turmoil 2 and believe me, it's ugly).Mostly I've done it when playing Pangaea, where in theory you get extra benefit and it's thematic. This worked ok in Dom 1 where you could massively patrol with harpies to deal with it, but is simply suicide now.

IMHO taking anything less than Order 3 is a handicap. Taking Luck with such a high Order is obviously self defeating, thereby greatly reducing the value of Luck, and making Misfortune more attractive.

Jasper

January 13th, 2004, 11:16 PM

Originally posted by Arryn:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by Jasper:
Plus I always take Turmoil 3 when picking Luck 3. How do you deal with the unrest caused by this? I tried it once (as Jotunheim) and I had massive problems with crippled income due to having to reduce taxes so much. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/confused.gif <hr /></blockquote>In dom 2 Turmoil doesn't cause unrest, it just lowers income -- dramatically. In dom 1 the unrest wasn't a big deal for Pangaea, as you could alleviate it by patrolling with Harpies. In dom 2 you really can't deal with the income loss.

Kristoffer O

January 13th, 2004, 11:18 PM

Originally posted by Jasper:
Whether an event is good/bad seems to be determined by the Luck of the province having the event -- but who's Order and Luck determines the frequency of a nation's events in the first place? Is it the Preteder's scales? The capitols? Some sort of weighted average of provinces you control?

Just how important is it with Turmoil/Luck to push your dominion so that your provinces actually have Luck 3 in practice? Are perceptions about luck colored by the number of events during expansion being based on potential Turmoil/Luck, while newly conquered provinces still have low Luck? Home province Luck determines number of events and good/bad effect IIRC. Scales of the province restricts event effects.

SurvivalistMerc

January 13th, 2004, 11:26 PM

Zen,

I agree with you here. Of course, if you are hit by a huge horde or trolls in your home province early on (as happened to one AI in a SP game I played), you might never get started. I have never had bogus and crew attack my home province. That would be a nightmare.

I would love to be able to compare statistically the effects of luck events vs. death scale over an entire empire. Because I think that even with good luck the predominance of the bad events will cost you population.

I sometimes toy with the idea of limiting major disasters (flood, earthquake) to once a year in the entire world. And checking independent provinces to see whether it happens there also.

Jasper

January 13th, 2004, 11:29 PM

Originally posted by Kristoffer O:
Home province Luck determines number of events and good/bad effect IIRC. Scales of the province restricts event effects. Ok, so the prevalance and +/- of events is pretty stable then.

Looks like a good way to screw with someone is to cast misfortune events on their capitol, or rather on their entire empire! Ouch! As if taking Turmoil wasn't painfull enough already...

Hmmm, are there any spells that cause Turmoil?

Jasper

January 13th, 2004, 11:32 PM

Originally posted by SurvivalistMerc:
I sometimes toy with the idea of limiting major disasters (flood, earthquake) to once a year in the entire world. And checking independent provinces to see whether it happens there also. Interesting idea! You could generate a random sequence of events, and then distribute them based upon everyone's Luck and Turmoil scales...

Not really an option for dominions, but perhaps some other game...

SurvivalistMerc

January 14th, 2004, 12:18 AM

So what happens if someone casts baleful star on your capital?

Jasper

January 14th, 2004, 01:36 AM

It sounds like you cry (especially if you have Turmoil), and hope that your Dominion reasserts quickly. And hope that your opponent doesn't keep casting it...

These spells have gone from nuisance in my book to potentially devestating.

[ January 14, 2004, 00:30: Message edited by: Jasper ]

Graeme Dice

January 14th, 2004, 02:53 AM

Originally posted by Arryn:
I already have over a dozen mages.Only a dozen? Then you really don't have any magical power to speak of.

More just aren't worth the bother as they don't survive combat, I have a 3:1 margin of research on the #2 AI, and I'm limited by my gem income.Mages easily survive combat if you position them properly. If you are limited by your gemincome then you haven't searched your provinces throughly enough, or are playing on a small map with a very low probability of magic sites.

By the way, many of the strategies people are fond of for multiplayer aren't significant for those of us playing solo ...That's a nonsensical statement. Any strategy that works against a thinking opponent will work just as well against an AI>

Arryn

January 14th, 2004, 05:16 AM

Originally posted by Graeme Dice:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by Arryn:
I already have over a dozen mages.Only a dozen? Then you really don't have any magical power to speak of.<hr /></blockquote>You're assuming I need more. I can hire mages, or I can hire Jarls. The Jarls have been more useful in expanding. Try not to assume that the way you like to play is the way someone else does.

Mages easily survive combat if you position them properly. If you are limited by your gemincome then you haven't searched your provinces throughly enough, or are playing on a small map with a very low probability of magic sites.More assumptions. See above comments. As for positioning, there are spells that will reach out and hit you anywhere. Ditto for flying enemies.

I personally find it more effective, in my games, to devote resources to reaching out and hitting the enemy than in defending myself.

That's a nonsensical statement. Any strategy that works against a thinking opponent will work just as well against an AI It makes sense if you think about it, rather than rush to judge someone else's play style. The AIs aren't as challenging as a human, so you need not worry as much about them, nor how they will react to you. You will never need to worry about an AI using an 'innovative' strategy. You can take your time developing your nation as you see fit because you know that there isn't a human on the other side itching to take you down as fast as he can as a matter of his own pride. Et cetera.

Graeme Dice

January 14th, 2004, 05:45 AM

Originally posted by Arryn:
You're assuming I need more. I can hire mages, or I can hire Jarls. The Jarls have been more useful in expanding. Try not to assume that the way you like to play is the way someone else does.No, I'm simply stating the fact that 12 mages does not a significant force make. I'd like to have 12 mages just researching by turn 14-15 in most cases, and even then, that's only going to get you somewhere in the neighbourhood of 60 research points.

More assumptions. See above comments. As for positioning, there are spells that will reach out and hit you anywhere. Ditto for flying enemies.If your enemy is casting spells that will affect the whole battlefield, and you are not supplying any magical firepower of your own, then I wish you luck in keeping your losses to a reasonable level. The only spells that can target mages specifically, and thereby are not affected by positioning as I already said, are magic duel and battlefield effects. Anything else can be avoided by being careful. If your enemy has fliers the mages them with a few heavy troops.

I personally find it more effective, in my games, to devote resources to reaching out and hitting the enemy than in defending myself.What on Earth are you talking about? Putting mages on the battlefield has nothing to do with being on the defensive.

That's a nonsensical statement. Any strategy that works against a thinking opponent will work just as well against an AI It makes sense if you think about it, rather than rush to judge someone else's play style.[/QUOTE]

No, it really doesn't. You just claimed that a strategy that is effective in multiplayer is not necessarily going to be effective in single player.

The AIs aren't as challenging as a human, so you need not worry as much about them, nor how they will react to you. You will never need to worry about an AI using an 'innovative' strategy. You can take your time developing your nation as you see fit because you know that there isn't a human on the other side itching to take you down as fast as he can as a matter of his own pride. Et cetera. [/QB]Which, of course, is you agreeing with me, and not at all what you originally stated.

SurvivalistMerc

January 14th, 2004, 04:41 PM

If anyone else is still interested in this topic, just pretend that Jaspar's is the most recent topic-related post.

PDF

January 14th, 2004, 04:57 PM

Back (more) on-topic :
I really have a problem with the "mix" between O/T and L/M : as it stands now you have to take Order to limit Misf effect, or to take Turmoil to amplify Luck. But Order is a rock hard good investment, whereas Luck is a gamble... http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif

In the end you have a 0 net Design cost in both case, but with O+M have +20% income, +6% res and *very few* bad events, in the other you have -20%, -6%, and may have unpredictable good events...(BTW getting 100's of Militias is just a waste of upkeep gold, not really a good news http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif !)

Who will be foolish enough to go for the second option ? Maybe for fun in SP, but no way in MP.
THAT'S the issue IMHO..

apoger

January 14th, 2004, 05:48 PM

>I really have a problem with the "mix" between O/T and L/M : as it stands now you have to take Order to limit Misf effect, or to take Turmoil to amplify Luck.

I'm working on a mod that will take care of this (for those that want to use it).

It should be done shortly, however I still need to know if there are mod commands that affect magic scale. They are missing from the docs, and I'd like to know if they are part of the available tools. It's hard to do balancing when one scale can't be modified.

ywl

January 14th, 2004, 07:01 PM

Originally posted by PDF:
Back (more) on-topic :
I really have a problem with the "mix" between O/T and L/M : as it stands now you have to take Order to limit Misf effect, or to take Turmoil to amplify Luck. But Order is a rock hard good investment, whereas Luck is a gamble... http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif

In the end you have a 0 net Design cost in both case, but with O+M have +20% income, +6% res and *very few* bad events, in the other you have -20%, -6%, and may have unpredictable good events...(BTW getting 100's of Militias is just a waste of upkeep gold, not really a good news http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif !)

Who will be foolish enough to go for the second option ? Maybe for fun in SP, but no way in MP.
THAT'S the issue IMHO.. Why can't you go for Order 0/Luck+3? You spend 120 nation points. But you get a moderate income, get insured from the major unluck events and have access to the occasional major luck events. The major boost from Cross-Breeding, Void-Gate and Transformation are not bad for some nations neither. Or you can go for Luck +1 or +2 using a lesser amount of points. Points are important but how else are you going to use it? Boosting up a combat pretender who might die frequently. It's always a balance of the overall design.

To me, Order+3/Luck-3 is usable but it is risky. You can get hit by something *very* nasty, even though the chance is smaller. And for some nations, you will definitely miss the heroes. Chao-3/Luck+3 is indeed stupid because of the disabling income. But it just show that negative scale is bad and you can't get something for nothing. It'll be more to my tastle if the effect of Order scale on random events decrease from +/-5% to +/-4%. But as what stands now, I don't think that it's such a no-brainer for Order+3/Luck-3.

Catquiet

January 14th, 2004, 07:16 PM

Apoger,

For your mod I would suggest reducing Order to +/- 5% gold to balance it against all the other scales.

Giving Luck a +/- 2% gold effect would be a quick fix for that scale.

Kristoffer O, could you list all the population destroying events and the scales they require?

SurvivalistMerc

January 14th, 2004, 07:28 PM

I wonder what folks would think about these effects:

Order: 6% income, -13% events per tick
Turmoil: -6% income, +13% events per tick

Luck: 1% income, +13% chance that event will be good per tick
Misfortune: -1% income, +13% chance that events will be bad per tick.

Order 3, Misfortune 3 would eliminate almost all random eents but only yeild 15% gold, and you wouldn't get the heroes.

Turmoil 3, Luck 3 would only be a 15% monetary loss, but you would have lots of luck, and 89% or almost all of them would be good.

Under Catquiet's scales, order3, misfortune 3 nets only 9% additional gold. And I assume you would still have 80% of events bad, normal numbers of events, and you don't get the heroes? That doesn't sound all that viable to me.

I still want them to let us mod the events. Because I want to make some really good events, like getting 20 units you would love to have in the late game rather than militia or flagellants. Some of the lucky events don't strike me as all that great right now, and I would like to fix that and go back to the pre-patch luck-order scales. But that's just me.

Catquiet

January 14th, 2004, 08:06 PM

Originally posted by SurvivalistMerc:

Under Catquiet's scales, order3, misfortune 3 nets only 9% additional gold. And I assume you would still have 80% of events bad, normal numbers of events, and you don't get the heroes? That doesn't sound all that viable to me.
Is it as viable as +3 Order , +3 Death ?

apoger

January 14th, 2004, 08:08 PM

Adding income to Luck scale cannot be done with the current mod tools. Only % changes to affects that already exist.

I have been testing my new scales pretty heavily and I like what I see so far. Once I have a bit more testing done I'll release it.

Also I'm still waiting on any indication of whether there is -any- cabability to alter the affects of magic/drain scale.

Saber Cherry

January 14th, 2004, 08:18 PM

Oooh, my modified scales got put up here: http://www.illwinter.com/dom2/mods.html

Make sure to tell me if you think the banner is cute! That's really the most important part, since it took 99% of the time.

-Cherry

P.S. I think it makes all the scales useful, and reduces catastrophic event frequency. Certainly Growth was made more useful; it was nearly worthless before. The scales cannot be adjusted perfectly (or even very well) until a couple more factors are added, like cost nOnlinearity, magic scale adjustment, and some additional effects, like scaling of major good and major bad events wth luck scales. A 3-tier event system would be nice: minor, moderate, major... and even a "maximal event severity" setting in game-setup, like in Space Empires IV. And for the magic scale... having it affect site gem output, and giving mages occasional extra randoms, would be nice. These Last two are not currently doable and would require major reprogramming=)

[ January 14, 2004, 18:22: Message edited by: Saber Cherry ]

Johan K

January 14th, 2004, 08:27 PM

Originally posted by apoger:
Also I'm still waiting on any indication of whether there is -any- cabability to alter the affects of magic/drain scale. That's a negative.

aldin

January 14th, 2004, 08:27 PM

The banner's great Cherry, but what, exactly, are the changes to the scales?

~Aldin

Saber Cherry

January 14th, 2004, 08:31 PM

Ah... to be specific:

Changes:

Major event frequency changed from 15% of events to 12%.

Order affects event frequency at 2% per scale, not 5%. I felt decoupling order and luck was very important.

Luck/Misfortune increases events by 7% per scale, not 5%. This is to make up for reducing the event frequency with a high turmoil.

Luck/Misfortune affect event polarity (good/bad) by 13% per scale, not 10%. Now the percentage of positive events is like this:

Luck : probability an event is good
3 : 89
2 : 76
1 : 63
0 : 50
-1 : 37
-2 : 24
-3 : 11

Growth/death changed from 0.2% population change per scale to 0.3%. Before there was no reason to ever choose Growth 3.

Capitol population by turn 30 (2.5 years):

Original, 3 growth: 35900
Rebalanced, 3 growth: 39200
Original, 3 death: 25000
Rebalanced, 3 death: 22900

aldin

January 14th, 2004, 08:35 PM

Looks great, I imagine I'll switch to the mod for my SP games. Having the mod won't screw up my MP games, will it?

~Aldin

SurvivalistMerc

January 14th, 2004, 08:36 PM

Catquiet,

I haven't tested it, but with current luck events, it seems less viable than 3 death. At least you get the heroes with death. And death doesn't cause you to lose provinces, only to lose population in a predictable manner.

I think the long-term problem of death dominion is why order has a 7% bonus to income now. I just about think they were balancing order relative to the death scale.

I don't ever take death with the nations I like to play. Because large armies are hard to move around in a death dominion. And Catquiet, I don't think the devs intended for most nations to take death 3. Though I could be wrong. I think select nations like Abyssia and the undead nations with dominion that will kill the population anyway were meant to take death. Death dominion is actually beneficial if you don't have living armies. For certain nations, death 3 is very viable. Ermor. Abyssia. Carrion Woods Pangea if they weren't required to take growth.

My real point is that 9% increase in income does not balance on the order side of the equation what your scales take on the misfortune side. I think most folks would agree with me. We could do a poll if you you'd like. I actually think just the economic effects of that much unluck in terms of tax loss, destruction of equipment, and the like will more than equal the 9% net income in your example. And that's not counting the heroes, population loss, getting Bogus the Troll, gem theft, etc.

SurvivalistMerc

January 14th, 2004, 08:48 PM

Saber Cherry,

I think your banner is extremely cute. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

I like the coupling of order to event frequency, though. For me, random things good or bad just seem inherently chaotic.

I notice you reduced the base event frequency. That gives everyone a bit of intrinsic order effect even if they don't take order scales.

Do you think there are "too many" random events on the default game settings of "common" random events? I know you can always just change that to "rare," but common events appears to be the default in MP.

Catquiet

January 14th, 2004, 08:59 PM

Originally posted by SurvivalistMerc:
My real point is that 9% increase in income does not balance on the order side of the equation what your scales take on the misfortune side. I think most folks would agree with me. We could do a poll if you you'd like. I actually think just the economic effects of that much unluck in terms of tax loss, destruction of equipment, and the like will more than equal the 9% net income in your example. And that's not counting the heroes, population loss, getting Bogus the Troll, gem theft, etc. My point was that +3 Scales are not supposed to balance with -3 Scales. +3 Order, +3 Drain would be terrible for most nations. The same with Sloth, Turmoil, or Heat/Cold. Some nations are resistant to one or more negative scales, but that is built into their balance.

You shouldn't try to balance +3 Order with -3 Luck. It's like saying Sight is as important as Hearing, therefore making your vision 75% better is worth reducing your Hearing by 75%.

rabelais

January 14th, 2004, 09:06 PM

Originally posted by Saber Cherry:
Growth/death changed from 0.2% population change per scale to 0.3%. Before there was no reason to ever choose Growth 3. Um, growth 3 has no geometric benefit over growth 2? What's the advantage to growth2 that doesn't scale?

Thanks,

Rabe

Saber Cherry

January 14th, 2004, 09:46 PM

Originally posted by SurvivalistMerc:
I notice you reduced the base event frequency. That gives everyone a bit of intrinsic order effect even if they don't take order scales.

Do you think there are "too many" random events on the default game settings of "common" random events? Actually, I changed the proportion of events that are "major". The total number of events is the same. The reason I did it is because major events are too frequent, and the bad major events are much more potent than the good major events. I would change it back to 15% if I could mod the events themselves, or (ideally) adjust the proportion of major good and major bad events for each scale setting.

Looks great, I imagine I'll switch to the mod for my SP games. Having the mod won't screw up my MP games, will it?

~Aldin I suggest using the mod only for single player games unless it is agreed ahead of time to use it for all players. I do not know if mod information is set when a game is created or not... so... personally, I am using that mod for single player, but I disable all mods before taking my multiplayer turns. However, I'll have to wait for a dev comment... it'd be nice if games were encoded with the mods used at creation.

Um, growth 3 has no geometric benefit over growth 2? What's the advantage to growth2 that doesn't scale?
RabeGrowth gives a bonus to supply and gold income as well. Sometimes I take growth 1 to get a 4th gold income multiplier (admin*growth*order*productivity), usually it is for increased supply if I take a negative heat/cold scale, but really... the points would be better spent elsewhere. Growth 3 sounds like it would make things grow like crazy, but in the vanilla game your nation can be eliminated before you even notice any effect. Now it is slightly better. The problem with growth 3 is that while neither growth 3 or growth 1 really help you, growth 3 costs 80 points more http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif

-Cherry

Graeme Dice

January 14th, 2004, 10:12 PM

Originally posted by Saber Cherry:
However, I'll have to wait for a dev comment... it'd be nice if games were encoded with the mods used at creation.They are, start a game with Trollheim, then turn the mod off. Start the game back up, turn the mod off, load the game again, and Trollheim will be re-enabled.

Keir Maxwell

January 14th, 2004, 11:12 PM

Just ot repeat some things I said earlier as they seem out of keeping with much of the opinion being expressed and I'd like to know why.

1.Turmoil3/luck3 is not suicidial

As I understand it nothing has changed about this option with the patch and in my experiance it works for some races - just not as well as order/misfortune used to. I have played many test games with this combo using races like Tuatha, BK and S&A and have only once seen my capital hit big time. Thats playing events commen.

2. Order3/turmoil3 may well prove suicidal.

As I understand it this combo is like it was in dom1 and in dom1 it was a killer and Alex warned us all away from anything like it. I would like to hear back from games people have played with this combo, what the events frequency was, and how bad it proved. I find it hard to imagine taking this set of scales in MP yet most seem to assume its still the norm and some have expressed the idea you would be silly not to which I really doubt to be the case. It may be this is a entirely viable option but it needs to be tested.

I would like to hear alot more on this one as I'm working on the War of the Ring mod and have no time for testing.

3. Order3/luck0 would seem the new norm.

If point 2 above is true then this is what alot of people are going to go for. It costs 120 design points more then turmoil/luck and will be stronger even though its not as strong as it was and wasn't chosen often previously.

While Turmoil/luck has not improved order has got worse which makes turmoil/luck stronger.

I'm a little suprised that alot of people seem to have written off the value of the changes to order/luck scales and are working on their own yet I have still seen no sign of a thorough test of the new scales. If the patch has been ineffective I'd like to see this demonstrated not just claimed. Feedback from games played under the new system is the key.

I am not sure the value in moddding the main game features to fix luck unless you are sure it doesn't work and people seem to be guessing on this. They may be right but that will take serious testing to demonstrate not one province runs. Are you playing events commen or rare? If rare then try commen for some better balence. Playing events rare and then insisting the luck scale is weak and something needs to be changed seems odd to me when you have the option of increasing the events frequency. Sure it takes a bit of getting used to putting up with the setbacks you will get but then I'm sure ancient rulers were pissed when they discovered some of their lords had revolted - thats what you get with all that turmoil. On the other hand if you try Luck you will find you do get some real big bonus's and Turmoil/luck costs no design points.

Illwinter you could do yourselves a real favour on this one by removing things like gaining militia from the good list as many, many, players have pointed out this is generally a very minor bad event and very seldom useful. That events like this are still in the game is, I think, one of the issues heightening people irritation as its been complained about for a long time, without a counter argument I've heard of, yet it remains. Militia "good" events ranks up there with Abysian fire mages precision in a list of the mean things Illwinter inflicts upon us. I have read many times how annoying people find such features and never read a defence of them yet they remain. Features like this bias people against you.

Cheers

Keir

ps. Saber don't take this as aimed at you as I realise what you are trying to do is make a major change in how the scales work not just fix luck. As such your mod represents an alternate way of playing not just an attempt to provide a new norm.

[ January 14, 2004, 21:15: Message edited by: Keir Maxwell ]

licker

January 14th, 2004, 11:24 PM

I kinda agree with Keir here, its a bit early yet to write off the Illwinter change as ineffective in fixing the percieved (though I percieve it) imbalance in order/misfortune.

I don't think the proper solution can be had by just tweeking the existing numbers anyway, I think that the effect of luck on the actual events should be changed. Such that there is no longer a bias toward good or bad events, but with luck good events are better and bad events are not as bad. With misfortune the opposite. Others have suggested this before as well. Assigning a straight % or having a set of 7 levels for each event depending on your luck level. The latter makes luck a bit less quantifiable, which I think it should be anyway http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

edit- Spelled Kier wrong http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif

[ January 14, 2004, 21:25: Message edited by: licker ]

SurvivalistMerc

January 14th, 2004, 11:48 PM

I am just very happy that they gave us the mod tools we already have. Everyone can make the scales the way they like the scales in SP. Whatever feels right to you. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

So no one loses any of his toys. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif And the old order/misfortune combination can still be used in SP just by making events rare. Except that that feels like cheating just a bit.

I'm going to try order/misfortune in a SP game with events set to "common." But I'm not looking forward to all of those bad events. I suspect it will be worse than a death scale of 3. Because we're talking no overall reduction in events (which was formerly at least half the benefit of taking order) and 80% of the events will be bad.

I'm starting to think that Order0 Luck3 might be interesting to play. Because it will increase events some though not too much.

If anyone uses the Cherry Mod and takes misfortune-3, I would love to hear their tales of woe. Because with events increased by 21% (assuming order zero) and 89% of them bad, I think you will be in dire straits.

What I love about the ability to mod is that we will be able to gain experience with the game and then change the scales to our own points of indifference. This would be especially true if we were allowed to give them non-linear effects. How much turmoil will you accept for 120 design points? Unfortunately, changing the scales will have unintended consequences for how some of the nations with forced turmoil play if the scales were lessened to one's point of indifference. I guess I will just use default scales when I play around with tien'chi.

Saber Cherry

January 15th, 2004, 12:00 AM

Originally posted by Keir Maxwell:
ps. Saber don't take this as aimed at you as I realise what you are trying to do is make a major change in how the scales work not just fix luck. As such your mod represents an alternate way of playing not just an attempt to provide a new norm. No problem=) I just don't like 2 scales being strongly aliased, so that moving one makes some settings of the other unviable... A minor influence is OK, though. I want fortune+order and misfortune+turmoil to be serious possibilties. With my changes, the first one is now useful, but the second one is only a little more viable than before...

Originally posted by SurvivalistMerc:
If anyone uses the Cherry Mod and takes misfortune-3, I would love to hear their tales of woe. Because with events increased by 21% (assuming order zero) and 89% of them bad, I think you will be in dire straits.The main problem with unluck is the major events (population loss), and those have been reduced, so overall it should prove safer than before...

...and I did not feel safe taking Luck 3 with the default 2.06 scale effects, because with luck 3 you get more events than luck 0... and thus, probably more bad events, but I can't say for sure because I don't know how event probabilities are calculated. "+21%" event frequency does NOT give you 21% more events - more like 100% more, I think.

[ January 14, 2004, 22:05: Message edited by: Saber Cherry ]

johan osterman

January 15th, 2004, 12:11 AM

Originally posted by Keir Maxwell:

Illwinter you could do yourselves a real favour on this one by removing things like gaining militia from the good list as many, many, players have pointed out this is generally a very minor bad event and very seldom useful. That events like this are still in the game is, I think, one of the issues heightening people irritation as its been complained about for a long time, without a counter argument I've heard of, yet it remains. Militia "good" events ranks up there with Abysian fire mages precision in a list of the mean things Illwinter inflicts upon us. I have read many times how annoying people find such features and never read a defence of them yet they remain. Features like this bias people against you.
Bowing to popular demands runs against the long and proud tradition of swedish paternalism. Being a swede carries with it certain responsibilities, one of them is telling people what they should think, and you Kier, you should think that militias are a good event. Also Kristoffer is a teacher, so the burden of paternalism rests even heavier on his shoulders.

[ January 14, 2004, 22:12: Message edited by: johan osterman ]

Jasper

January 15th, 2004, 12:29 AM

Originally posted by Keir Maxwell:
Just ot repeat some things I said earlier as they seem out of keeping with much of the opinion being expressed and I'd like to know why.

1.Turmoil3/luck3 is not suicidial

2. Order3/turmoil3 may well prove suicidal.

3. Order3/luck0 would seem the new norm.
IMHO:
1. Is a clear handicap, because of the lost income.

2. Looks Dangerous to me too, although perhaps for nations with Misfortune averting mages.

3. Order 3 + Misfortune 1 has been working pretty well for me so far. This feels like the new min/max strategy to me.

I look forward to seeing Alex's scale mod.

Nagot Gick Fel

January 15th, 2004, 01:03 AM

Originally posted by Keir Maxwell:
2. Order3/turmoil3 may well prove suicidal.

As I understand it this combo is like it was in dom1 and in dom1 it was a killer and Alex warned us all away from anything like it. I would like to hear back from games people have played with this combo, what the events frequency was, and how bad it proved.OK, here's my report -

Playing Order+3/Misfortune+3 in a common events PBEM right now.

In the first 26 turns, Version 2.02, I had 2 bad events at the capital (brigands causing unrest - one was automatically cured by patrols, the other did cost me ~220 gold as I dropped the taxes to 0 to get rid of the problem), 1 bad event in a 2k province (again brigands), 1 mixed event (witch giving gems and cursing units - as I had no unit there it was actually good for me) and 1 good event (some extra gems). Turn 27, just before we patched, I had 1 more good event in a province in enemy dominion - castle popping out in an underwater province, the bug that was fixed in the new patch - doubly lucky! http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif

After the patch, I had one more good event (+50 gold, -20 unrest). So in 29 turns, the net result is:

+1 castle worth 450 gold
+9 gems
-170 gold

SurvivalistMerc

January 15th, 2004, 01:53 AM

Nagot Gick Fel,

Please keep us posted. I would love to discover what happens to you in the remainder of the game.

Keir Maxwell

January 15th, 2004, 02:58 AM

Originally posted by johan osterman:
Bowing to popular demands runs against the long and proud tradition of swedish paternalism. Damn!

Are you open to bribery?

http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

Keir

Keir Maxwell

January 15th, 2004, 03:03 AM

Chris Byler

January 15th, 2004, 06:35 AM

Originally posted by Keir Maxwell:
Just ot repeat some things I said earlier as they seem out of keeping with much of the opinion being expressed and I'd like to know why.

1.Turmoil3/luck3 is not suicidial

As I understand it nothing has changed about this option with the patch and in my experiance it works for some races - just not as well as order/misfortune used to. I have played many test games with this combo using races like Tuatha, BK and S&A and have only once seen my capital hit big time. Thats playing events commen.It's not suicidal but it may force you into a slow start, unless you get lucky early.

One thing to note with S&A though, you get quite a few free gems from luck, which a magically powerful nation could use. But turmoil cuts into your CM recruiting income.
2. Order3/turmoil3 may well prove suicidal.

As I understand it this combo is like it was in dom1 and in dom1 it was a killer and Alex warned us all away from anything like it. I would like to hear back from games people have played with this combo, what the events frequency was, and how bad it proved. I find it hard to imagine taking this set of scales in MP yet most seem to assume its still the norm and some have expressed the idea you would be silly not to which I really doubt to be the case. It may be this is a entirely viable option but it needs to be tested.

I would like to hear alot more on this one as I'm working on the War of the Ring mod and have no time for testing.The reason order/misfortune was "bad" in Dom I was that you didn't need order to tax at 200% wherever you felt like it - it was just slightly convenient to have order. Now that tax/patrol abuses are a thing of the past, order's gold bonus looms larger.

You get the standard event frequency, but most events are bad. But you get +21% income from those provinces that haven't been overrun by barbarians or vinemen, flooded, stricken with the plague etc. I don't know whether this is a worthwhile tradeoff for 0 points - but some themes have to take order, and now one theme has to take misfortune, so in at least those cases it might work out.

3. Order3/luck0 would seem the new norm.

If point 2 above is true then this is what alot of people are going to go for. It costs 120 design points more then turmoil/luck and will be stronger even though its not as strong as it was and wasn't chosen often previously.

While Turmoil/luck has not improved order has got worse which makes turmoil/luck stronger.
IMO it would be more accurate to say that misfortune has gotten worse, not order. Order3/luck0 isn't significantly worse than it was before; it has slightly more events but they are still (theoretically) balanced. But order no longer covers up the bad effect of misfortune as much.

I don't think that order 3 luck 0 will necessarily become a standard. The benefits of order are potent but 120 nation points is a lot, especially if your nation needs lots of supplies, or high dominion strength, or fast research, or you are playing a theme that costs points, or your nation relies on sacred troops and needs a good blessing, or... there are always more good ways to spend nation points than there are nation points to spend on them.

Temperature is a no-brainer for certain nations. Any other scale you have to think about, unless your theme requires a +3 setting.

I like this.

I'm a little suprised that alot of people seem to have written off the value of the changes to order/luck scales and are working on their own yet I have still seen no sign of a thorough test of the new scales. If the patch has been ineffective I'd like to see this demonstrated not just claimed. Feedback from games played under the new system is the key.

(snip) With all the changes already in the patch (two new themes, balance and bug fixes) and more in the works (I heard there is a 3rd underwater nation on the drawing board, from the screenshot it looks like a nation of tritons! I hope they have mages whose standard magical abilities allow for Amulet of the Fish...), I'm reluctant to jump into modding immediately (either making my own or playing someone else's). I want to give Illwinter's Version some more time first.

January 15th, 2004, 06:43 AM

I don't have any particularly conclusive tests atm, but it feels to me that there was a slight (very slight) increase in events in Order3/Misfortune3 but Order0, Luck 0 there are less events than prepatch. I don't know if one of the hidden adjustments was to lower the overall chance of events in order to compensate some for the balancing of the scales.

If I have time I'll do some 50 turn tests with the basic land types unless someone else gets to it before I can while I struggle with making a good looking pdf.

[ January 15, 2004, 04:44: Message edited by: Zen ]

Paul1980au

January 15th, 2004, 08:49 AM

I guess this would affect gameplay if it was changed to a great degree.

PDF

January 15th, 2004, 04:48 PM

Originally posted by Nagot Gick Fel:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by Keir Maxwell:
2. Order3/turmoil3 may well prove suicidal.

As I understand it this combo is like it was in dom1 and in dom1 it was a killer and Alex warned us all away from anything like it. I would like to hear back from games people have played with this combo, what the events frequency was, and how bad it proved.OK, here's my report -

Playing Order+3/Misfortune+3 in a common events PBEM right now.

In the first 26 turns, Version 2.02, I had 2 bad events at the capital (brigands causing unrest - one was automatically cured by patrols, the other did cost me ~220 gold as I dropped the taxes to 0 to get rid of the problem), 1 bad event in a 2k province (again brigands), 1 mixed event (witch giving gems and cursing units - as I had no unit there it was actually good for me) and 1 good event (some extra gems). Turn 27, just before we patched, I had 1 more good event in a province in enemy dominion - castle popping out in an underwater province, the bug that was fixed in the new patch - doubly lucky! http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif

After the patch, I had one more good event (+50 gold, -20 unrest). So in 29 turns, the net result is:

+1 castle worth 450 gold
+9 gems
-170 gold <hr /></blockquote>I wondered how you built "Hill Fortresses" underwater, you damn Pythium cheater, now I know... http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/shock.gif http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/tongue.gif
And you're damn lucky to get all this with Misf3, I didn't get so good event with Misf1, I did only get 2 Heroes (but lost one to a stray iny Xbow bolt http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon9.gif ) http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif

PDF, aka Allgemeine Von Ulm http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

Nagot Gick Fel

January 15th, 2004, 05:14 PM

Originally posted by PDF:
I wondered how you built "Hill Fortresses" underwater, you damn Pythium cheater, now I know... http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/shock.gif http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/tongue.gif And notice I got that fortress in a province that's influenced by your own dominion. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif You deserve a warm "Thank you!".

And you're damn lucky to get all this with Misf3, I didn't get so good event with Misf1, I did only get 2 Heroes (but lost one to a stray iny Xbow bolt http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon9.gif ) http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif Ah, at Last you realize your situation is hopeless. So, you surrender?

[Edit: typo]

[ January 15, 2004, 15:15: Message edited by: Nagot Gick Fel ]

General Tacticus

January 15th, 2004, 05:58 PM

Originally posted by Keir Maxwell:
Just ot repeat some things I said earlier as they seem out of keeping with much of the opinion being expressed and I'd like to know why.

1.Turmoil3/luck3 is not suicidial
I agree. Have you read my Mictlan AAR ? I am playing at Turmoil 3/ Luck 1, with Mictlan, and doing well, thank you.

However, Turmoil 3/Luck 3 and Order 3/Misfortune 3 should not really be compared in terms of gold produced alone. Turmoil 3 is for nations that are less gold-dependant. Luck 3 is a playing style (and does give you a nice boost, don't forget to play common events !). The Turmoil 3/ Luck 3 works well with some nations (Mictlan, Ulm, Ermor I suppose, ...). What was really sad pre-patch was that Order 3/Luck 3 was a useless combo. And that Order 3/Misfortune 3 cost nothing but had almost no downside (specially with rare events). No wonder it was taken by everybody ! And they never noticed they were losing some very nice events, awesome heroes, and so on. This seems to be fixed now.

Not convinced ? Try it ! Take a nation that is not too gold dependant, for example Ulm. Take Turmoil 3 / Luck 3 and whatever other scale you feel good with. Play it. Expand. And look at the nice events. The bigger you grow, the more events. Free troops. Free castle. Free lab. Free gems. Free Gold. Free unrest reduction. Free magic sites. Free commanders. Free artifacts. Free permanent increase in taxes or in ressources. While you are at it, try casting crossbreeding. Watch the awesome results http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif Remember you paid 0 design points for all thoses events http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif Discover your nice national heroes (OK, Ulm's heroes suck, try it with someone else http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif ).

Hey, now that the scale are fixed, I believe I'll try a Order 3/ Luck 3 game. The gold AND the events ! http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif Of course, I'll have to make sacrifices elsewhere.

SurvivalistMerc

January 15th, 2004, 06:09 PM

Will the devs confirm whether there has been an overall reduction of the number of events on the "common" events setting as part of the scale changes in the 2.06 patch?

Humer

January 16th, 2004, 07:52 AM

Originally posted by General Tacticus:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by Keir Maxwell:
Just ot repeat some things I said earlier as they seem out of keeping with much of the opinion being expressed and I'd like to know why.

1.Turmoil3/luck3 is not suicidial
I agree. Have you read my Mictlan AAR ? I am playing at Turmoil 3/ Luck 1, with Mictlan, and doing well, thank you.
<hr /></blockquote>Agreed also. Playing T'ien Chi S&A w/ Turmoil-1/Luck-3, turn 40 and worse that has happened is "Very ill omen...". There has been also a few cases of robbed witches and whatnots but my troops seem to have been agile enough to dodge those curses. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

OTOH, I have received about *ten* mines (of silver and gold-varieties), couple of permanent tax-increases (was it 35gp?), about 1k gold and a s**tload of gems. There just seems to be goodies waiting to happen every turn.

Although my Divine Emperor might have something to do with it... http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif

- Humer

PDF

January 16th, 2004, 03:32 PM

Originally posted by Nagot Gick Fel:
Ah, at Last you realize your situation is hopeless. So, you surrender?
Yeah, I have no chance vs the Underwater King of the Hill http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/tongue.gif !
I will consider surrendering, but payment should be in hard real cash, not in gems ! http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif

[ January 16, 2004, 13:36: Message edited by: PDF ]

licker

January 16th, 2004, 05:14 PM

Originally posted by PDF:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by Nagot Gick Fel:
Ah, at Last you realize your situation is hopeless. So, you surrender?
Yeah, I have no chance vs the Underwater King of the Hill http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/tongue.gif !
I will consider surrendering, but payment should be in hard real cash, not in gems ! http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif <hr /></blockquote>LOL!!! I think that of anyone mine is the most hopeless situation (Arco nonwithstanding http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif ), yet I won't surrender, I'll just pump out a hoard of totem shielded Empoisoners and begin operation assassination on the world!!! http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif

Bah and to think, if I'da had one more turn things with Machaka would be very very different http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/tongue.gif

Jasper

January 16th, 2004, 06:11 PM

Originally posted by General Tacticus:
Turmoil 3 is for nations that are less gold-dependant.IMHO all nations are extremely gold dependent, except _perhaps_ Ermor. There are always very effective things to spend gold on, such as mages or forts to increase your reseources. The only thing arguably more important than gold income is gem income.

Keir Maxwell

January 17th, 2004, 11:04 PM

Here is some bits a bobs on luck from another post based on testing a T'ien Ch'i BK mod which has seen my use luck turmoil scales lot.

----------------------
When I tried using a pretender other than the Lady of Fortune I got severly manhandled by luck - 1/5th pop emmigrated from capital t.9 1/5th from biggest other province 3 turns late, plague, trog all in the first 16 turns. I was also been attacked by two neighbours early (bad starting position) and had Kau Feng (PoD) feebleminded by a random arrow shot as he lurked in the back wearing rainbow armour. I decide to give up on this one when my prophet bought it even though militarily I was still putting up a fight and taking the war to the enemy - I just didn't have enough gold coming in and hadn't got a second castle even though I was using the wizard tower. The random events did not destroy me and there were good ones (total of 150gps in cash) but I end up with that feeling described by so many - I'm paying for maximum luck scales and I still get bad luck.

I went back to LoF and things went much better. I have never had a significant bad event in my capital using LoF and while this is probably just luck she has become my lucky taliesmen. In fact I think the only reason I have a far kinder view of luck than most is using the Lady of Fortune. Have I just been really lucky with her or does she have an ability to stop bad events in the province she is in?

As luck issues are making it hard to get a good take on this I'm going to start using a simple luck mod. Basically its Saber Cherries idea of +-13% luck/misfortune on quality of events with no other changes to scales. This means with luck3 you have a 89% chance of an event being good - I think it was 95% in dom1 so this is not that extreme compared to what many of us are used to playing with.
-----------

I noticed Humers comments on good luck using the Jade Emperor with interest. All my good experiance with luck is using the Lady of Fortune. I know there are characters out there who can prevent bad events - can these two. You read their description and you would think so but Kristoffer didn't mention it when he gave us details on their luck modding effects. Still you should not have to take one of these two to have a good time with Luck as Tuatha don't even get them.

If there is any desire for it I will post the +-13 luck mod. Its very easy to make. Seeing as there have been a number of problem with the mod tools I must sit down and run a mod which makes it impossible to get a bad event to make sure event modding is working.

cheers

Keir

Keir Maxwell

January 18th, 2004, 04:43 AM

Changing misfortune percent seems to work. I tried #misfortune 20 to make sure and ran a 50 turn test with no bad events. Best event was 1500gps, 10 fire gems, and a magic item. With the misfortune percent high enough to guarantee any event was good you get a pretty good return at turmoil3.

Cheers

Keir

Coffeedragon

January 25th, 2004, 05:42 PM

Originally posted by johan osterman:
...you should think that militias are a good event. They are. Build a cheap leader to pick them up, take the Militias into your next large battle. Put them in front of your army, attack closest enemy. Let your Crossbows/Mages/whatever shoot into the melee.

Part of the opposition will get killed, others will get fatigued and you will win that battle easier/with fewer losses to your valuables. Also, you will have done some good, as befits a God, because the life of your Militias will have been meaningful, if short.

SurvivalistMerc

January 26th, 2004, 02:27 AM

Folks have started another topic regarding luck/order and have asked the devs to comment. They already have in this thread.

So...I am bumping this thread to the top so that the folks who haven't read it may do so before asking the devs for further comment.

rabelais

February 8th, 2004, 04:55 AM

Question about the positive money random events.

Been doing some luck vs. order revenue testing.

Through 900+ province/turns (event frequency is proportional to # of provinces, correct?) of turmoil-1/luck3 ....

I've gotten the +500 gold event MANY times, but never the +1000 gold or +1500 gold events. Do the latter require that one not take turmoil?

I noticed that turmoil3 significantly increased the number of pop destroying events... is this true or just a sample artifact?

In other words, turmoil doesn't affect the distribution, just the frequency as I currently understand it. (subject to event domain local contraints)

Did this change in the patch?

Rabe the Revenue Researcher

Norfleet

February 8th, 2004, 10:57 AM

Originally posted by rabelais:
I noticed that turmoil3 significantly increased the number of pop destroying events... is this true or just a sample artifact?Well, certain events are altered in likelyhood based on the scales....and there ARE supposedly a number of population-destruction events that are keyed to Turmoil. Since Turmoil simultaneously promotes more random events, and unlocks some, obviously disorderly events, it stands to reason you'll see that much more of them, given that you're subjected to far more random events, of which some will surely be the unlocked pop-destroyers.

Scott Hebert

February 8th, 2004, 08:31 PM

While I am a vey new player, I had a suggestion that might help this.

Instead of luck affecting the % that a given event will be good or bad, could you perhaps make it so that good luck and/or bad luck has a chance of simply negating an event of the other type?

E.g.,

Luck-1 30% chance of negating a bad event at the province
Luck-2 60% chance
Luck-3 90% chance

Misfortune-1 30% chance of negating a good event at the province
Misfortune-2 60% chance
Misfortune-3 90% chance

This would have the overall effect of reducing the number of events, as well as tilting their frequency.

As an example, let's say you have 20 potential events in a province over 20 turns. These events would have a 50/50 chance of being good or bad. Under this system,

Luck-1 would give 10 good events and 7 bad events.
Luck-2 would give 10 good events and 4 bad events.
Luck-3 would give 10 good events and 1 bad event.

By contrast, currently it would be

Luck-1 would give 12 good events and 8 bad events.
Luck-2 would give 14 good events and 6 bad events.
Luck-3 would give 16 good events and 4 bad events.

I think this would streamline things a little.

My other idea would be to basically tie the scale effects tighter to the dominion rating. That is, Order would give +.75% income to a province per dominion point in that province, as an example. This would apply to the Luck scale in that you could juggle the numbers to the point that a province with Luck-3 Dominion-10 would have 100% good events. And one of the problems currently is the effect of population-destroying events in big (e.g., home) provinces, right?

Anyway, just some ideas...

Bayushi Tasogare

Psitticine

February 9th, 2004, 02:54 AM

Hmm . . . I rather like that idea!

Norfleet

February 9th, 2004, 03:09 AM

Originally posted by Bayushi Tasogare:
My other idea would be to basically tie the scale effects tighter to the dominion rating. That is, Order would give +.75% income to a province per dominion point in that province, as an example. This would apply to the Luck scale in that you could juggle the numbers to the point that a province with Luck-3 Dominion-10 would have 100% good events. And one of the problems currently is the effect of population-destroying events in big (e.g., home) provinces, right?The interesting effect of this is that tying scales to Dominion rating would give low Dominion a synergy with bad scales. If your scales are negative, AND you have low Dominion, you can shake loose even more points because you can greatly reduce the actual impact of scales through low dominion.

Scott Hebert

February 9th, 2004, 01:33 PM

That's a good point, Norfleet, and not one I had considered.

However, I would think that low dominion is 'its own reward'. If you choose a 3 Dominion and bad scales, and I have an 8 or 9 Dominion and good scales, this would have serious repercussions on the outcome of the game, I should think. Certainly, you would have better magic and therefore bless effects, but you're going to have to buy temples and/or do other things to spread your dominion, which raises your dominion, which raises the problem. If you don't, you run the very real risk of dying from dominion loss.

Another rather obvious solution would be to invert the negative scales with regard to dominion.

IOW, Order is the best at Dominion 10, and Turmoil is the worst (for you) at Dominion 1. Personally, I don't think this is as balanced as the original proposal, though, because then you are rewarded for increasing your dominion, which is something you're going to want to do anyway. As it is with the current proposal, you can have a really good Pretender/Bless effect _if_ you are willing to dance a razor's edge where Dominion is concerned.

Anyway, just my thoughts.

Bayushi Tasogare