Luck/Misfortune Nerf.

[HoneyBadger]

Hi all.
Don't you hate it when you don't even have any misfortune and you still lose your lab or temple (or both). Or when your population is cut in half, and then in quarters, and then in 8ths, all within the first 3 years of the game?
I do. It's the one thing that does put me in favor of some kind of save game feature.

I'd really like to see this fixed so that, unless you actually have taken misfortune scales, you won't suffer a great misfortune for the first 3 years of the game.

Sure, I don't have a problem with witch's curses, rains of toads, or barbarian hordes, but I think that a minimum of Luck 0 should grant you a little breather from any totally ruinous disasters for the first 3 years into the game.

It's especially bad in a MP game because either you're well on your way out, or everybody else has to change their playing style to prevent you getting killed.

If you take Misfortune, you asked for it and your on your own, but I think it's reasonable to expect to not have your game randomly rendered fairly unenjoyable through no fault and no in-game bad luck of your own.

Three years is a reasonable amount of time for any competent player to be able to build a nation which can survive the worst that ill-luck can throw at you, meaning that instead of coming down to randomness, we'll see more games coming down to strategy.

Thanks.

[Taqwus]

Maybe even letting magnitude of events vary, so that the massively *good* events also aren't occurring for some period -- in this case, the price of the Luck/Misfortune scale would need to sharply decline in non-large games.

[HoneyBadger]

I totally agree with that one. If you haven't picked any Luck scales, you shouldn't be getting 3000 gold, a handful of fire gems, and a magic item, for atleast 3 years into the game.

It's hard to adjust the price of luck/misfortune, or any scales, because they all are set to cost 40 points per level. That means changes to them need to be done to the business end, rather than the input end, and that can be tricky. It would be nice if scales reflected upon the size of a starting map, the number of nations, how large your nation happens to be at a given time, etc. The above 3000 gold ++ is fantastic if you get it the first turn, but not quite as good when you own 2/3rds of the map and gold's like water to you.

Dynamic scales I imagine would be a programming nightmare, though.

[Ygorl]

I guess I wouldn't mind seeing some of the more far-out events limited to those nations with far-out luck (good or bad). It's not really the case that a run of bad luck means the game is totally over, though... For example, in a multiplayer game, I lost 2/3 of my home population in the first two turns, and then suffered massive unrest in the third turn - with no misfortune scales! My income was decimated, but I made friends with my neighbors, survived, and am now one of the stronger nations in the game. Single-player is different, of course, but single-player it's not such a big deal to start a new game if you get hosed ten minutes into it.

[Micah]

As long as both the really good and really bad events were both restricted to appropriate scales the costs wouldn't have to change, since middle of the road scales would lose both the good and bad effects. If anything the scale tips should be worth MORE points, since luck 3 would keep the good but lose the chance for bad events, and vice versa.

[Gandalf Parker]

You dont feel that misfortune is a useable tactic? Besides getting points for it, you can do your empires business outside of your domain and then push the bad domain strongly onto your enemies.

Of couse that doesnt work so well on small blitz games.

[Cafard]

That's why i'm in love with +3 Luck. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/happy.gif

[TwoBits]

Maybe its just bad things happening in your capitol that need to be restricted the first couple of years.

[Manuk]

If you don´t spend points on luck why you expect to have good events?

I hope they don´t nerf a thing. I don´t want the scales to give free pick points at all. That´s pointless. As if you take death your mages suffer from old age more often. and so on.

[Foodstamp]

I am a huge turmoil 3 luck 3 fan http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/happy.gif

[LDiCesare]

3 years? I had 2 bad events which hit me at luck 0 in the first 2 turns of one game. Definitely ruined my ability to do anything in the game (well, that and the fact I picked Bandar Log too). So preventing bad events for 3 turns, OK. But for 3 years? Definitely that's way way too long. It would mean an automatic Misfortune 3 for me, with Order3 becoming almost free.

[Gandalf Parker]

There is a game switch to make events rare. Dont most of the small blitz games turn that on?

[Micah]

I think a couple of the later posters missed the point of the OP's post, instead going by his questionable choice of thread titles (I think "early extreme events nerf" may have been more to the point, since the issue isn't with the scales).

The point isn't that the scales should be nerfed, just that if you don't take misfortune you shouldn't have to deal with a plague in your capital on turn 2. It's really not fun trying to play a game with half of your income gone. If you want to roll the dice by playing misfortune scales you're welcome to, that's part of your pretender design.

Then, to balance this change so that it isn't a one-way nerf to misfortune, other posters suggested that really good events be similarly restricted to those with luck scales, which maintains the parity between the two.

I'm in support of this idea, although I doubt it will get coded. There's plenty of randomness in the game already, especially regarding starting locations. Losing half your income early on to an event is basially an auto-loss. Being forced to take luck 3 to (more often) avoid horrible events is much less preferable to just restricting both ends of the spectrum to the appropriate scales. Your capital's starting income and resources are always the same (modified by scales), its events should be as well.

Twobits: I like the idea, but in order to maintain fairness the restriction should be in place for all of a player's provinces...I'd trade 10 plagues and 3000 unrest in the 500 pop swamp near my cap for one 1500 gold event there. Good events tend to be less province-specific (gold and magic items pass go and proceed directly to the treasury, for example) while the bad ones (especially the really nasty ones like Bogus and population decimation ones) mostly stay put in the province they happen in.

[Strages Sanctus]

Most of those extreme events though are also related to taking extreme scales other than luck/misfortune.

Some terrible events can only hapen if you have high death for example, jsut as some great events can only happen if you have high magic. At least that is how I understand it.

[Gandalf Parker]

And they should all be setbacks only. If I remember, you can lose a temple early but not the lab.

[HoneyBadger]

Yes, thank you Micah.

3 years is only 36 turns, which-considering the amount of strategic choices you can make-might be a lot for some people or nothing at all for others.

3 years is an arbitrary number, BUT here's the thing, it's also the average number of years you can expect to wait for your Pretender, if your Pretender is imprisoned, so it's a Dev-chosen length of time set as an outer limit on when your game should be rolling by.

3 years thus is a strategic byline coded into the game as a soft but strong number already.

And I'm definitely not saying "Let's not have any bad events happen at all in the first three years!".

I'm not suggesting that they not happen if you decide to choose Misfortune scales.

I'm not suggesting that they not happen if you choose to have Luck scales.

I'm just saying that if you have Luck +0-+3, you shouldn't have to worry about a major, game-altering, Nation-imploding bad luck event, like losing your temple or lab (in certain circumstances, losing your temple is just as bad or even worse than losing your lab-playing Mictlan for instance with low Dom and an imprisoned Pretender) or your population being halved or having 25 vampire counts attack your province, or having your Dominion mirror-reversed to black candles in your home province, before turn 37.

On turn 37 I don't care if the Hunter of Heroes eats your castle and then sits on your face, that's tough luck but by that time your nation has a decent chance to recover, regardless of what kind of strategy you happen to follow.

[HoneyBadger]

Oh and another small but nice side-effect of this would be to make another area of the game time-related, than just sticking me with a bunch of old magic-using geezers who end up forgetting their spells and drooling on themselves half the time anyway.

If time causes, and is related to, bad things happening, it should also cause, and be related to, good things. I'm all in favor of that.

(I'm also in favor of the philosophy that-if you have Nations who are handicapped over time because of the age of their units, you should also have Nations with units who grow stronger over time, as that's only logical and makes for balance, but that's another thread.)

[Gandalf Parker]

HoneyBadger said:
3 years is only 36 turns, which-considering the amount of strategic choices you can make-might be a lot for some people or nothing at all for others.


36 turns is a long ways into a small map blitz game. That would make taking unluck a no-brainer. We would have new people complaining then because to some thats all that Dominions is.

And I mentioned lab because if you have no mages and you lose your only lab then you will wait for a hero or a merc that has magic in order to build one. With the loss of a temple you just need your prophet.

And Im pretty sure that the most extreme events are already supposed to be limited in the initial turns. Only taking the most extreme scales can make you that unlucky since I think it never quite goes to zero.

[HoneyBadger]

Well then 12 turns for small maps, 24 for medium, 36 for large, etc. No reason we can't suggest Scales be themselves "scaled" to fit situations. Ideally, you could simply select the level of adjustment at the beginning of the game and apply it based on personal choice and circumstances.

[Micah]

If you took misfortune 3 you'd still run the chance of bad events, same as now, the proposed change wasn't for anyone that took actual bad scales, why do people not seem to be reading that?

[HoneyBadger]

I think it has something to do with my poor choice of title. I just like using the word "nerf" is all http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/biggrin.gif

[Ewierl]

But losing that initial temple *is* a severe setback for many nations; if all your mages are sacred, and your Prophet is a few provinces away by turn 3, not only can't you recruit anyone to replace the temple, but you can't recruit *anyone*...

It's not so bad in Dom3 with sleeping/imprisoned pretenders, but I remember in Dom2 once losing my Oracle pretender on turn 2 to an independent assassin. That was a game-stopper!

All bad events are setbacks, but some really are much more vicious than others, especially in the very early game. Having to spend half of your first 8 turns just recovering from a random-event setback can put you unrecoverably far behind other players.

[Gandalf Parker]

But I thought the game was already setup so that those things didnt happen early. Or at least, didnt happen unless you had taken settings that specifically said "Im willing to take the chance"

[HoneyBadger]

Which is why I initially wrote this post, Gandalf.

I was trying to spread out my poor Mictlan Dom (2) and in the middle of it, lost the lab for my home provice. It happened before the 3rd year was over and I had a Luck of 0. It wasn't in this case a particularly enormous loss, I admit, but it could have been had I been using a different strategy, or playing an MP game-or even seriously endeavoring to play a game, rather than just testing theory.

I didn't ask for bad luck, I also didn't ask for good luck-please note. But it certainly was reason enough to post about it. I would appreciate it if other people could take the time to test this and see how limited catastrophic events are in the first 3 years of the game, just so that Gandalf and I could compare notes.

Thanks.

[SelfishGene]

The problem, in a nutshell, is starting with 1 province.

[HoneyBadger]

But I like starting with 1 province.

[Gandalf Parker]

I think that at the moment the safety zone is set for something like 3 turns. So its not the want as much as the range of the safety that is in question.

And of course, starting with one province is a game option. I often like to start with 3-5 on large maps.

[thejeff]

Losing your lab sometime in the first 3 years isn't really that big a deal. It's a one turn delay on recruiting capital-only mages and researching/casting in the capital along with 500gp. Not a game breaker.

Losing your lab in the first few turns when you might not even have recruited a mage yet. That's a game breaker, especially with dormant/imprisoned pretender.
Same for early temple loss.

[Agrajag]

Have you tried using Random Events Are Rare? http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/tongue.gif

[TwoBits]

Is there any "safety zone" at the start of a game? I don't think so.

Once my capitol got hit by vampires on the 2nd turn (before I had the chance to even think of attacking my first independant) of a small , random map MP game (and I had +1 luck to boot).

Wiped out my PD and income right from the get-go. I had to demand a restart, and justifiably, I think.

That's the kind of irritating (and major time wasting - we're talking days if you're playing PBEM, like we were) event that needs to be mitigated against.

[Shovah32]

One of the worst things is having an imprisoned pretender and losing your lab before recruiting a mage.

[HoneyBadger]

Ok, so what I'd like is the option to set the "safety zone" to a maximum of 36 turns with possibly some options in between the two extremes. Maybe 3, 6, 12, 24, 36.

Thejeff, that's just a minimal example of a bad situation that repeatedly comes up. Losing your lab within the first 3 years might not be catastrophic in and of itself, but if you are playing a no-income nation (and I often do) and have to wait up to a year or two to gather 500 gold, and you can't cash in gems, then it becomes really viciously bad for your nation.

Frankly, I'd be pleased if there were a way to cash in gems without needing a lab. It seems just as reasonable, since the game uses a gold economy (the basic dollar equals a POUND of gold at a time...assuming it's pure 24 carat gold, and assuming mining techniques are primitive, especially in Early Age, where are they getting it all??? A pound of silver I could see. An ounce of gold I could see. Paying 10-20lbs of gold for a militia unit, nope.) to be able to cash in gems without needing a lab/alchemy.

Maybe as a basic function of the Fortress, and extend it to all gems, possibly keeping different prices per gem, and maybe having a fluctuating price based on the size of your nation-so that gems are worth more, the larger your nation is (at the time when lots of gems are more valuable to you), divided by decreasing in price the more the market is flooded by a specific gem.

Ofcourse, the nature of the game tends to preclude a nation-to-nation trade option, I guess I understand that, but there could still be a shadow economy going wherein a nation would put gems on the market for purchase by-for instance-that damned old witch who keeps cursing my troops.

[thejeff]

Even the no income nations have some income. Newly captured provinces, luck events. Years to get 500 gold? Months maybe.

If you're really concerned about this, build another lab or keep the money on hand. Consider it insurance.

I assume you have money at some point. All the no income nations (Which is what now? LE Ermor & Rl'yeh?) benefit from temples and forts.

The first couple turn problems are in a different category, since there's so little you can do to prepare and with only 1 province the effects are proportionally much worse.

[TwoBits]

Totally off topic (forgive me please), but regarding that witch who curses your troops for raiding her hut for gems, do you actually get any extra gems for that event?

[Gandalf Parker]

@TwoBits:
Its hard to tell but yes you should get some. However, Johans idea of little, some, many a lot, is quite abit different from the players.

@HoneyBadger:
The turns limit on bad events at 36 seems crazy to me. Ive seen many blitz games of 2-4 players that are considered to be over by that time. A setting of 36 turns would make taking -3 luck a total no-brainer.

I agree it could use some balancing since at the moment +3 luck seems pretty automatic for many people.

[Taqwus]

...Misfortune of any kind still doesn't become automatic.

I really wouldn't mind seeing SEIV-level event modding, where individual events could be tweaked in magnitude and were rated as to severity. It'd probably please some of the more grognardish players who seek more predictability... some of the events can be quite lucrative or destructive (free items can be as high as Cons 6, if memory serves; 3000 gold AND items is nice; if you've been using Growth +3 in a long game to get lots of pop and it gets wiped out by Ancient Presence, that's ugly).

3 years -is- a very long time, 'tho; by that time, it would seem rather reasonable to have another fort/temple/lab complex and at least some cash reserve, unless it's a custom map with absolutely brutal independent forces that slow everybody down.

[HoneyBadger]

Gandalf, you're right, 3 years is everything on a small map in a blitz game. And it's NOTHING on an enormous 1500 province map with gold, resources, and supplies set to 50-which is how I normally play.

And if 3 years is too much for some people, that's ok, give us the option to decide what's too much and what's too little and that will have me whistling dixie.

And I'm not talking taking Luck -3 (or Misfortune 3), I'm talking taking Luck 0 PLUS. There's a big difference. I keep pointing this out, Micah keeps pointing this out, and nobody else seems to understand that all I'm suggesting is, if you don't take any misfortune, you shouldn't suffer apocalyptic events before a certain user-defineable turn.

I'm fine with bad events. I'm fine with taking any amount of misfortune and losing my temple on turn 1. I have no issue with that.

I just don't want to set up a gigantic game with a 1500 province map and have to worry about inconveniencing 20 people at a time for days in the case of PBEM, just because one of them happened to roll an illusionary 1 on the mighty computer dice.

[HoneyBadger]

And yes, by the way, I am well aware of-and extensively use-the random-limiting feature. Bad events still occur frequently, even with it turned on, and even to the point where they trash nations within the first 36 turns, with Luck 0.

[Gandalf Parker]

I wouldnt mind seeing that setting expanded. It seems like have two settings on levels of events is way too small. And most of the other switches have a much more extended range.

[SelfishGene]

I wouldn't mind pop migration events if they didn't just dissapear but moved to neighboring provinces. Ditto for overtaxing.

[tromper]

I agree with both HoneyBadger and Gandalf Parker. But as a largely SP sort, I would like more options with regard to points that influence events. A curtailment for three to six turns or something would be tolerable. 36 is too much.

Furthermore, it's important that even the Pretenders that go +3 Luck ought to have crappy things take place occasionally. Am I the only one that actually gets caught up in the role playing of Dom3? Take it as it comes, girl.

Remember that time that some of you old coots, myself halfway there, rolled a twenty sided die as a 1, two or three times in a row, back in the eighties. The ka-ching pays off in the long run, insofar as immersion, despite frustration.

As Gandalf, and others, has/have clearly stated many times, if you're going after a long term PBEM game or a quick blitz, there are settings to take care of this 'problem'.

I fail to understand why this is even a major issue.

[HoneyBadger]

Who's a girl?
Sorry to disappoint all the starstruck lovers out there, but I'm a big hairy Sasquatch of a man. And married, too.

The roleplaying issue is fine, and I like to use my imagination as well as the next person, but this isn't the point. It doesn't enhance my experience to settle in to play an extended game only to have my nation obliterated.

If 36 turns is too much for you, then that's fine, choose something different. I'd certainly agree that in some circumstances, it is too much-especially small and blitz multi-player games. In others though, I don't think it is.
I just would like to have the opportunity to determine what's best for the circumstances of any given game.

[Gandalf Parker]

If he ever actually went up against a honeybadger he would be unlikely to think "feminine" ever again in connection to taht name.
http://www.honeybadger.com/

[tromper]

hahaha, sorry to disappoint you two, but I was making a reference to some late 80s Milli Vanilli lyric there, as opposed to bothering with gender messiness. Feel free to look it up yourselves and re-read my post.

Clearly you both thought otherwise. *still chuckling*

Regardless, this thread is dead. And I place my trust in the designers to continue focusing their effort(s), insofar as their programming and creative time, on things that further the aspects that have enraptured all of us. As opposed to mass audience placation.

[curtadams]

Why not make prevent luck events from happening in the capitol for, oh, twelve turns? Luck and Misfortune would still have strong effects starting from the first conquest. The early major catastrophes aren't a disadvantage to taking Misfortune, because you'll just restart. They are in effect bugs when they happen.

Incidentally, getting 3000 gold on turn 2 in a MP game is IMO a major problem too. I guess it doesn't happen often enough for people to object.

[HoneyBadger]

tromper, as to your referencing a Milli Vanilli lyric...well, I definitely feel disappointment, along with shock, disgust, shame, and general appaul, although perhaps not in the direction you intend http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/happy.gif And it's hardly fair or accurate to pronounce the thread as "dead" since there's quite a lot of people posting to it every day.

Perhaps you have it confused with Milli Vanilli's career?

Well, any reasonable set amount would certainly be a good start, curtadams. I just feel that with a strategy game of this complexity is better served by an array of choices than just one "I know I'm right and this is the way it has to be" opinion.

It's just not that kind of game.

[HoneyBadger]

I do agree about the 3000 gold etc. event, but then it's already been hashed over. I agree that really unfair ADvantages are as inappropriate as really unfair DISADvantages, within the first to-be-decided-upon-by-individual-users-or-general-consensus-at-the-start-of-the-game period of time.

[Meglobob]

I very much like the entire current luck/misfortune mechanics as they ARE. As someone who always usually plays with extreme luck/misfortune, events both good/bad have never been totally responsible for me losing or winning a game.

Those mechanics should be left AS THEY ARE. Developers time would be better spent on other changes.

Anybody blaming luck/misfortune on losing a game or having there game spoiled is really using it as an EXCUSE for there own poor gameplay.

[HoneyBadger]

That's hardly the case, Meglobob. Even Gandalf seems to think the idea has some merit, and he's hardly an example of a poor player.

I often play with extreme luck/misfortune, and when I do, it's a strategic choice. I'm not making any excuses, or claims about my ability as a player of the game. I'm simply pointing out an area of the game that seems far too arbitrary and can potentially reduce the enjoyment of the game for many people, not just a few.

And I never said I'd lost a game because of a bad luck event, I've just had the fun sucked out of the experience for far longer than any choices of mine would merit.

[TwoBits]

Having your home province trashed by renegade vampire-counts in the second turn should hardly be considered an "excuse". I rate it up there with having the computer start you on a one-province island (what the heck is up with that?) as an immediate game ending scenario.

[Twan]

Meglobob said:Anybody blaming luck/misfortune on losing a game or having there game spoiled is really using it as an EXCUSE for there own poor gameplay.



Have you already had a true disaster on your capitol in the very first turns in a mp game, like losing half your capitol population, or having it invaded by a vampire count or bogus in turn 2, etc.. ?

Note that Luck/Misfortune has nothing to do with it as misfortune is no longer a condition for the worst events (unlike in dom2 I think), but some of them may make you lose a game no matter how your gameplay is.

[Gandalf Parker]

I wouldnt say that blaming a bad event is just poor gameplay. But the possibility of disastrous events and having to play around it is a strong element in Solo play. I wouldnt want to see it nerfed.

On the other hand, I can see that the dedicated Multi-Player people might really hate it. They want the winner to be able to say that they won by superior strategy.

So I would be more behind the idea of spreading out the command options for a game so that instead of just rare or common, we could have a range of something like 0-5 (nothing to insane). That way the MPers can have challenge ladders that run at 0, and I can have chaos-map games that run at 5.

Its a common suggestion to any developer of any game. "Please Mr Programmer. Can we have something below your most extreme logical setting, and above your most insane choice? Because no matter what you feel is a who-would-want-it setting, I can gaurantee that someone will request it."

[HoneyBadger]

And that's all I want, Gandalf. More options.

[Teraswaerto]

When you effect the frequency of random events it also effects the value of the luck/misfortune scale.

Ideally, changing the frequency of random events would also change the frequency of events in such a way that the scale is always equally valuable in design points.

[HoneyBadger]

Yes, but the ability to restrict random events is already in the game, so this is nothing new.

[Gandalf Parker]

Its in the game but not enough. Obviously not restrictive enough for some in this thread, and not wild enough for me. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/happy.gif

[Meglobob]

Twan said:

Meglobob said:Anybody blaming luck/misfortune on losing a game or having there game spoiled is really using it as an EXCUSE for there own poor gameplay.



Have you already had a true disaster on your capitol in the very first turns in a mp game, like losing half your capitol population, or having it invaded by a vampire count or bogus in turn 2, etc.. ?

Note that Luck/Misfortune has nothing to do with it as misfortune is no longer a condition for the worst events (unlike in dom2 I think), but some of them may make you lose a game no matter how your gameplay is.



Got to admit I have'nt... http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/happy.gif

No vampire counts, bogus, 1/2 population in the first few turns...must be naturally lucky!

[HoneyBadger]

Well, there you go. Next time we go to the Dominions 3 convention in Vegas, I'm hanging out with Meglobob.

[Edi]

Barbarian horde or Vampire Counts on the second, third or fourth turn is a game breaker. Bogus in the home province essentially anytime in the first 20 turns likewise. Those are the only ones I'd restrict for maybe the first five turns but no more.

Getting your lab or your temple burned down on the second turn is not a game breaker. It's an inconvenience and a setback, but not a game breaker. If you got your lab burned down on turn 2 and hadn't recruited a mage on the first turn: boo-hoo cry me a river, you screwed up, you live with it. Or restart as it may be.

I like the luck/misfortune mechanics as they are right now.

It seems to me that a fairly large number of complaints about the luck/misfortune issue, much as with the old age issue, come from people who want to use Death 3 and Misfortune 3 scales without actually suffering from the consequences of that decision.

Edi

[Twan]

High misfortune is no longer a condition for the worst events. The dom3 system favors misfortune 3 more than misfortune 0 as no matter your misfortune you may be screwed by an extreme random thing in the very first turns.

If you want to discourage players to use misfortune, plagues, ancient presence, Bogus, etc... should have misfortune x as a condition.

[Edi]

Ahh, that makes a lot of the arguments more sensible then. They should be tied to misfortune + other scale the way they were in Dom2.

Edi

[Olive]

High misfortune is no longer a condition for the worst events. The dom3 system favors misfortune 3 more than misfortune 0 as no matter your misfortune you may be screwed by an extreme random thing in the very first turns.



Yes, but it happens more often. I remember my tests with order3 / misf2, at a certain point of the game, i had indie attacks most of the turns, even with the highest order.

But you're right, yesterday, I made a test with luck3 - OK, and turmoil3 - , I had a plague in my capitol in the first 5 turns. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/frown.gif

When It happens on SP, you can just restart, but on a multiplayer game, when it happens on first turn, the game is screwed just when it begins. Got it on our game "CyberGlory", and I had no terrible scales - order 1, growth1, misf 1. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/frown.gif

[PDF]

As my gamemates Olive and Twan said, the events really require a reveiw to have them more tied to Luck/Misf levels, pbem games are now often screwed for some players by big nasty events right from turn 2.
I really don't understand why that has been changed from Dom2, it doesn't make Luck more useful, it just makes the game more random.

[alexti]

Edi said:
Barbarian horde or Vampire Counts on the second, third or fourth turn is a game breaker. Bogus in the home province essentially anytime in the first 20 turns likewise.


I'm not sure that it's that catastrophic. In SP game it's not a big deal. In MP game it's tough, but I've recently got 4 bad events in a row (turns 3 to 6) that brought unrest in my capital above 100 (and destroyed my income as well, of course). Then I got involved into war with 2 nations at the same time. To top it I've started with a wrong plan and wrong pretender. The key point of the game was my mistake in scripting when sieging one opponents castle. Not sure what would happen if I didn't make mistakes myself, but I wasn't clearly out of the game after the bad start. So I don't think that any kind of bad events necessarily mean that you're out of the game.

[Micah]

Given that scenario I have to question either the quality of your opponents or the quality of the respective nations...I don't care how good you are, no one should be able to take 2 opponents on at once after cripplingly bad events, especially with a self-inflicted poor strategy.

[HoneyBadger]

I just started playing a game with Abyssia, and I was going to start with 0 Luck, and I realized that I couldn't safely start the game with less than 1 luck without risking a major disaster-the last game I played my Prophet was cursed in turn 7 AS I was in the process of Prophetizing him, and no misfortune, but I still don't think the witch's curse is a catastrophic event, unless she nails your SC Pretender, which would be rare.

Anyway, any time a relatively experienced, didn't-just-buy-the-game-yesterday, player can't validly decide to choose a given scale of 0 as part of a strategy, it means something is unbalanced. At this point, I would never, ever take any level of misfortune.

Scales, by their very definition, are tools of balance.

[HoneyBadger]

Ok, luck 1, turn 2, Abyssia: plague strikes, cutting my pop by 1/5 and costing me 200 gold.

[PDF]

HoneyBadger said:
Ok, luck 1, turn 2, Abyssia: plague strikes, cutting my pop by 1/5 and costing me 200 gold.



What's broken is that now Luck doesn't seem to prevent major disastrous events - you just have less chance of getting them...
I don't think Curse event has much importance anyway (even on a Prophet or Pretender), but plagues, earthquakes and so on have.

[Micah]

Curse on an SC pretender early seems like a major setback, as he'll rack up afflictions from doing his thing...I don't see the problem with a cursed prophet though, I tend to keep mine in the back happily smiting and blessing things, with no serious chance of injury, and thus no chance of an affliction.

[HoneyBadger]

Yeah, even the 1/5th pop event, if it only happens once, not every turn or so (which does happen), wouldn't be a big deal. And I do consider a cursed Prophet to be just pure bad luck and not the scales at fault. The point is that major catastrophies do happen and Luck doesn't seem to help you.

[Baalz]

Well, I think the issue is not so much with the "dude, that sucks!" events such as a cursed pretender, temple or lab burning down, or several turns of unrest in your capitol. Its more with the things that there is no way to prevent, no way to mitigate, and pretty much make it impossible to come back from. Its just a random roll of the die and you're out of the game regardless of anything you could have possibly done even if you knew it was coming. Strong indy's attacking (Bogus!), and big population killing events are about the only things I can think of that fit that category for me. Everything else fits more into the flavor category- sure it may make the difference in a very competitive game but that's always gonna be the case if you have any radom events at all.

On the luck side of the scale, I don't really see the same issue. There are no events that if you get them, basically ensure you a victory. It's not even close to the impact that one of the catostrophic events will have early in the game- Game Over Dude!

[HoneyBadger]

That's why I'd like to see it delayed a few years, because we're talking things that depend on the strategy you're attempting-if you're LA Ermor and all your pop dies, 100% in the first year, not a really big deal.

If Bogus attacks a province with really strong PD like Abyssia, you've got a good chance of repelling him, same thing with vampire counts.

I wouldn't want those events removed from the game by any means, but definitely a delaying factor on atleast some of them, and you're right about the good events. You could get 3000 gold etc on turn 2 and it doesn't mean you're going to win-it helps a lot, but it's not a certain thing. Again, if you're LA Ermor, not so much of a big deal.

Alternative to my previous suggestion is this possibility:

I'd be happy if-instead of 3 years with no catastrophies-you got 1 year with no good or bad luck events if you choose 0 luck. That would make Luck 0 a strategic choice instead of just a default, which is nice.

Then you could further the same restriction against those with Luck positive or Misfortune positive. Luck positive means no bad luck events for that many years, while Misfortune positive means no good luck for that many years, then it defaults to the current situation.

[Maltrease]

I like your suggestion HoneyBadger. But maybe luck 0... is exactly the default we have now. Luck 1 would be no bad events for a year.

I also think that luck should be completely uncoupled from the order scale. None of the other scales are reduced or enchanced in effectiveness by a selection in a different scale.

[HoneyBadger]

I prefer Luck 0 as having a year off of both, because otherwise, why would I ever choose Luck 0? Luck 0 should be a strategic option, but if it's just the same as Misfortune 1 or Luck 1 as far as solving the problem at hand, then why choose it?

[Gandalf Parker]

I wouldnt say that none overlap. The conversations about order often overlap with growth for maximum preferred effect. And growth with temperature.

On the luck 0:
it seems that taking no +/- should be the natural real world default of some good and some bad. That feels right but the problem with that thinking is that then +3 would be "no bad for x turns" and -3 becomes "no good for x turns". Id have to think about that.

It could be that luck 0 is no events at all good or bad for x turns. That also would seem that +3 means no bad for x turns, and -3 becomes no good for x turns.

Maybe it could be that all settings get no events at all, good or bad, for x turns. But then the X would have to be small enough to not have to monstrous an effect on small-map blitzes. I dont like game suggestions that seem to think that all games are small-map blitzes but I also dont want to ignore that many MANY games are that type.

[HoneyBadger]

"It could be that luck 0 is no events at all good or bad for x turns. That also would seem that +3 means no bad for x turns, and -3 becomes no good for x turns."

I think that's exactly what I'm saying, Gandalf, although not in the exact words by any means. As per Luck 0 being the default of that-no good and no bad events for x amount of turns, I'm perfectly fine with that, and I think I suggested something of the sort up there too http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/happy.gif

Thanks a lot.

[Gandalf Parker]

Sorry, I was just trying to gather my stand on it from what all I had read.
But also, I think that might be what we already have. Though it might be as short as a 3 turn safety. I havent tested it lately.

[HoneyBadger]

Nothing to be sorry about, I just wasn't sure if you were confused or not about what I was saying.

It's definitely not 3 turns, I've had bad things happen on turn 2.

[alexti]

Micah said:
Given that scenario I have to question either the quality of your opponents or the quality of the respective nations...I don't care how good you are, no one should be able to take 2 opponents on at once after cripplingly bad events, especially with a self-inflicted poor strategy.


I think you're making wrong conclusions. Opponents were pretty good. My strategy was quite decent too. It was simply wrong - I expected to encounter uber-bless, but neither of my opponents didn't play it, so I ended up with relatively useless pretender and bunch of spells researched that weren't useful in particular situation. Another important point is that opposition doesn't generally consider destroying you as their own purpose. They have to be concerned with other nations getting stronger. Skirmishes in the early game is one thing, but a major war is a risky undertaking: if you can't win in fast, you're likely to end up in a poor position very soon. So as long as you're able to inflict (or at least convince them that you can inflict) serious damage on the opponents they will typically be satisfied by minor successes. After all they're following their grand plan and it's unlikely that they've built their strategy around you (their neighbour) having unlucky start.

[HoneyBadger]

Luck 1, year 2, Abyssia, lab destroyed. Because of an early luck event, I have no income coming in, and because of the strategy I'm playing, no realistic ability to generate income, and 2500g worth of mages are essentially worthless for X amount of turns.

[alexti]

You can alchemize fire gems. Besides, if in the second year you don't have enough income to buy a lab, are you sure that your strategy is good?

[HoneyBadger]

You can't alchemize fire gems without a LAB http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/happy.gif

Also, several people have suggested that one save up gold incase this exact type of event occurs, but you can't save up gold, there isn't a "1st Bank of Dominions" out there to store your gold for a rainy day.

The closest you can get is to alchemize fire-gems, which is exactly what you CANNOT do without access to a lab, you see?

It's a beautiful example of Catch-22

[Agrajag]

HoneyBadger said:
Also, several people have suggested that one save up gold incase this exact type of event occurs, but you can't save up gold, there isn't a "1st Bank of Dominions" out there to store your gold for a rainy day.


You have a treasury of unlimited size.


Unless you have so little self control that you can't bring yourself to not spend 400 of your gold.

[thejeff]

What is your strategy that leads to having "no realistic ability to generate income"?

By year 2, you don't have enough provinces to have at least that much gold coming in? Luck events only affect one province at a time, so even if your capital's income was trashed, conquered provinces shouldn't all be.

By year 2, most people will have/be building a new fort/lab anyway. Lets you recruit more mages and insures against this kind of problem.

Abyssia does rely on gold. Are you doing something, massive blood hunting maybe, to crush your income and relying entirely on fire gems for gold?

In short, this seems a weakness in your strategy. You're gambling on this not happening, when there are reasonable ways to prepare for it.

[Twan]

If you need money for a lab you can always pillage a province. The problem is more losing your lab if you have no mage (it may happen in turn 2 if you have an imprisioned pretender and play a nation recruiting an holy 3 priest the first turn... you'll have to find a mercenary mage or wait 30 turns), or temple if you have lost your prophet and have no priest (but not so important as after 8 turns max you can make a new one).

The game breaking events are more often early invasions and ancient presence/migrations/plagues.

[PDF]

Gandalf Parker said:
Sorry, I was just trying to gather my stand on it from what all I had read.
But also, I think that might be what we already have. Though it might be as short as a 3 turn safety. I havent tested it lately.



Can you confirm ? I'm positive about the lack of "safety period" in 3.00-3.02 (I've seen Plagues on turn 2 on several occasions), but not after.

[alexti]

HoneyBadger said:
You can't alchemize fire gems without a LAB http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/happy.gif



You mean that was your ONLY lab? Just curious, what is your strategy? Year 2, with no income for lab (and no second lab), but at the same time 2500 worth of mages... - that means that you had enough income until just recently. If you're bloodhunting everywhere you could stop bloodhunting for a turn or two, but then, does it mean that you've 2500 worth of mages (that have nothing to do without lab) and enough bloodhunters to drive income to zero? How did you manage to recruit them with only one lab? http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/happy.gif

[Gandalf Parker]

I dont think its as clear as a "no events for x turns". Its more like no catastrophic events for x turns. And of course everyone has different opinions on what is or isnt catastrophic. Id say that losing a lab before you would have recruited a mage would be a biggy.

[HoneyBadger]

Ok, 1: you have an unlimited size treasury, but in no way that I'm aware of can you protect any amount of gold from being itself wiped out by a bad event or being collected by troops or etc. You can't save say 200 gold for a rainy day, because all the gold in your treasury is open game.
2: I was alchemizing fire-gems for income, which is how I afforded all those mages.
3: I didn't really have a "strategy" in this instance, since I was just testing out Abyssia's ability to research in the early part of a game. In a real game I'd definitely have to build an additional lab or two.

Besides which, I've been trying to develope as far as they can be developed, strategies which don't rely on a gold-income. It makes the game a bit more challenging and more of an intellectual exercise.

That's not really here nor there, however, I'm just recording bad luck events on this thread-and I'd agree that by year 2 it's reasonable to expect to be able to recover from a bad event.

Should such a bad event be occurring by year 2 with Luck 1 and rare events? To decide that is the purpose of this thread.

[Gandalf Parker]

Well some bad events are likely to happen, so its more of a question of HOW bad an event isnt it?

[HoneyBadger]

Well, that depends (as so much does) more on the level of experience of the player, and the circumstances of a given game, than it does the particular event in question.

[Agrajag]

HoneyBadger said:
Ok, 1: you have an unlimited size treasury, but in no way that I'm aware of can you protect any amount of gold from being itself wiped out by a bad event or being collected by troops or etc. You can't save say 200 gold for a rainy day, because all the gold in your treasury is open game.


Well, otherwise what would be stopping you from putting all of your gold in the "bank" every turn and becoming immune to gold-reducing events?

[TwoBits]

A penatly for "early withdrawal" perhaps? http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/happy.gif

[Gandalf Parker]

You mean like putting 500 gold into recruiting knights, then taking them back 4 turns later because you need the gold for something else? Doesnt that escape harsh events? I do that alot. Not for that reason, but just because I have a crappy memory on where the knights were available. My "bank" is any province with knights, elephants, cavemen, shamblers, trolls.

[HoneyBadger]

So, there's no real way besides Gandalf's somewhat unsatisfying solution to "have the willpower to save gold for a rainy day".

I still think the game would be well served with a more advanced economic structure, but clearly it's a good idea in any game to purchase several labs and temples as a top priority regardless of your Luck scale, as the game currently stands.

[Gandalf Parker]

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

[VedalkenBear]

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

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

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

[Meglobob]

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



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

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

[HoneyBadger]

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

[thejeff]

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

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

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

[HoneyBadger]

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

[Wyatt Hebert]

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

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

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

Just a few thoughts I had while reading...

Wyatt

[thejeff]

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

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

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

[HoneyBadger]

It does happen from turn 2 though, even with Luck 0. You can lose your temple, your lab, half your population, your dominion, even your home province, from turn 2, I've had it happen. If you're not taking Misfortune, then bad luck should not have the ability to trash your nation, whether it's on turn 2 or turn 102.

Now, as the game goes longer, the amount of bad luck needed to trash a given nation increases, so bad luck events can also increase, but as it is, it's completely random, and I don't think scales-even scales dealing with luck and misfortune-should work in completely random ways.

You don't take Heat and get Cold 3 in your home province unless someone's casting some really nasty spell at you, when you take Growth, you expect your population to either remain the same or steadily increase without an outside factor, so why should you be getting terribly bad luck at any point in the game when you've got positive luck scales?

[LDiCesare]

Here's another proposal. I've had a 1st year like this in a MP game, with Luck zero, order three (so few events normally):
Turn 1 game start.
2 nothing special.
3 Curse on capital, unrest increases to 28.
4 1/5th of capital population leaves, loss of 80 gold.
5,6,7 nothing.
8 1/5th of captial pop leaves, loss of 80 gold, curse: unrest to 68.
9 Neighboring province gets bandits for 35 unrest.
10-12 nothing special.
That's a total of 5 bad events in the first year versus zero good events. Four out of five occur in the capital. Individually, they are not that nasty, but put together the drops in gold income are very significant.

Since I have luck 0, I'd expect to get at least some good events to make up for the bad ones. Why not create a measure of luck, like good karma/bad karma that accumulates? If you get bad events in the first turns, you get more chances that the next event will be good, and vice versa. For instance, after 2 bad events in the first turns, your next event cannot be bad if you have luck 0 or more. I know this is less random, but it could be better than a total ban of events in the initial turns (which for me is between 3 and 12 turns).

Also, some event(s?) caused my capital luck scale to become misfortune (one), but I've got no idea which. Before, I was at luck 0, later I got back to 0 as my dominion brought it back up, but a random event increasing misfortune in the first turns can be a killer if you get Bogus because of it.

[HoneyBadger]

I really like that. Not sure how difficult it would be to execute from a programmer's standpoint, but definitely a decent and finite solution. Thanks LDiCesare!

[HoneyBadger]

Another solution for Luck 0 is the possibility that with Luck 0 you'd only recieve "double edged events" to quote Taqwus (thanks Taqwus). You'd get the witch's curse, and the deepest cave in the province, but you wouldn't get any absolutely good or absolutely bad events. Infact, you could tie all events to a specific luck or misfortune amount, so that you'd need Luck3 to get say the 3000 gold, the magic item, the fire gems, the girl, the gold watch, and everything, and Misfortune 3 to get the Ancient Presence In Your Cheerios.