Luck/Misfortune Nerf.

[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?