global enchantments when there are 5 already?

[Crazy]

Here is the scenario:

There were 4 enchantments and I cast one.

Next turn. An opponent casts a global enchantment which takes effect(5 total now). I get a message saying that my enchantment is cast but when I check it is not there.

If there are 5 and an enchantment is cast, is there a dispel attempt for one of the 5 current globals or is one of the 5 randomly replaced by the new one being cast??

Thanks.

[Wish]

there is a dispel attempt. Usually the weakest of the globals is dispelled.

[Folket]

I think the sixth enchantment will challange a random enchantment unless there is an identical enchantment up allready.

The enchantment that is most empowered will win the challange. There might be some small random factor here.

[Agrajag]

Doesn't Luck scale play a role here?

[Folket]

Well, at least luck plays a role.

[Graeme Dice]

Agrajag said:
Doesn't Luck scale play a role here?



The luck scale has absolutely no effect on dispelling globals.

[Ygorl]

If I remember correctly (a forum search that I'm too lazy to do could corroborate), each spell gets 1d6 open-ended, with the high roll winning. To each roll is added the number of extra gems spent on the spell (above the normal cost - if you're using a site that decreases the cost, it starts counting from the *full* cost of the spell, not the reduced cost, so the site is useless if you want to add extra gems) and the caster's extra magic levels in the appropriate kind of magic.

[archaeolept]

^^ I believe that is the correct formula. I once empowered my caster to a modded 14 astral str just to get an extra +3 or so on the roll, w/ max gems http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/happy.gif

1. if the global you cast is already up, it will compete w/ that one

2. if not, it will compete w/ one of yours that is already up.

3. if you don't have any, i believe it will compete w/ a random one.

4. sometimes it doesn't seem to act according to these rules - the situation has always seemed a bit buggy http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/happy.gif

[capnq]

archaeolept said: 2. if not, it will compete w/ one of yours that is already up.

I hope you are mistaken about this. If true, it seems like a really poor design decision.

[archaeolept]

dunno what's poor about it... other than it irritates the player - but if you got rid of elements that cause trouble for the players, that's like half of Dominions http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/laugh.gif


generally, to support a claim that something is a poor design decision, it is considered polite to actually provide some argument...

[capnq]

archaeolept said: generally, to support a claim that something is a poor design decision, it is considered polite to actually provide some argument...

Good point, my bad.

It makes no sense to me that magic spells would preferentially interfere with other spells by the same caster. Especially when competing with spells supported by an enemy.

OTOH, the limit of five global enchantments only makes sense from a metagame programming perspective anyway.

[archaeolept]

yah, that's why the rule is irritating to the (usually dominating) player - but it probably works from a balance perspective, as it makes it more difficult for someone w/ an edge in gems to corner the globals, or to parlay gem producing globals into further ones...

[Vicious Love]

archaeolept said:
yah, that's why the rule is irritating to the (usually dominating) player - but it probably works from a balance perspective, as it makes it more difficult for someone w/ an edge in gems to corner the globals, or to parlay gem producing globals into further ones...



Erm... wouldn't it just make it easier for the quickest researcher to corner the globals? Once they're full, any one other player could only replace ONE global spell. Which makes absolutely no sense. You sure about this rule?

[Cainehill]

It definately doesn't take down one of your own first, except as a side effect of choosing one of the five at random - I've blown my own globals down, but have also taken down those of other players while I had some up.

I suspect that Arch thinks it takes down one of his own because he so often has multiple globals up : if a player already has 2 globals up, it's 40% likely to try to override one of his spells, and with 3 up, it's 60% likely.

That's one reason I'll often try to dispel a global if there are five up and I have more than one of my own - means I've got a much better chance of not screwing my own enchantments up.

[Vicious Love]

Cainehill said:

It definately doesn't take down one of your own first, except as a side effect of choosing one of the five at random - I've blown my own globals down, but have also taken down those of other players while I had some up.



I'd surmised the same, but not enough experience with replacing globals to be absolutely sure my memory isn't screwing with me.



That's one reason I'll often try to dispel a global if there are five up and I have more than one of my own - means I've got a much better chance of not screwing my own enchantments up.



Does that actually work in lategame multiplayer? Wouldn't everyone simultaneously jockey for the empty slot, making it empty in name alone?

[Fate]

But that means your new global will attempt for the empty slot, not one YOU already have claimed, giving you a chance for another global.

[archaeolept]

heheh

the caveat w/ globals is that they've always seemed buggy - no explanation has ever fully worked - which adds in a nice sense of terror whenever you cast one. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/happy.gif

[Vicious Love]

Fate said:
But that means your new global will attempt for the empty slot, not one YOU already have claimed, giving you a chance for another global.



So you're certain it doesn't mean the first nation in the resolution sequence gets the slot, and all the nations thereafter are treated exactly as though they'd cast a spell with 5 globals already up?

Hm. If multiple nations do compete for the same slot, what do you suppose happens if one nation casts both an overpowered (a good hundred gems above base cost) global and a weak one? Is there a chance of the weak one being used in the bid for the slot, failing, and the powerful one being cast normally (that is, competing with a random global) after some other nation gets the slot? This would all be pretty tiresome to test, I'm just wondering if anyone has some inkling of what the exact sequence is.

[Folket]

Luck is allways a factor. I was not refering to any luck scales.

As soon as there is something random there is luck.

[Ygorl]

The first global cast takes the empty slots. Any others are treated exactly as though there were five globals already up (since there are!)

I think the order in which ritual spells (including globals) happen is the order of unit ID (which might be the order in which units were created, and almost certainly is the order in which they show up in the commander list in a province) or else that order reversed, with a 50% chance for either.