Please don't take my toys away!

[Gandalf Parker]

Originally posted by Truper:
I enjoy positive luck scales, and wonder if the folks who enjoy and are good at extensive testing don't miss the boat when they do their tests as an either/or black/white comparison between order 3 misfortune 3 on the one hand, and turmoil 3 luck 3 on the other.

There are very different Groups involved and sometimes its hard to pick them out. I like to make reference to the Formula Folk and the Random Map Cult but its not always so cut and dried.

One thing I see come up often in game debates (30 years worth of game debates) is a vary basic difference in opinion over what is or isnt strategy or tactics. Some people (lets call them chess players) feel that balanced maps and no surprises makes for the best strategy game. Others (gamblers?) like to make best tactical use of whats thrown out to work with. Of course most people arent cut-and-dried, they tend to be some of both.

This discussion feels like its headed that way though. Trying to decide which scale is more important to the players, or which ones will be an automatic choice, is difficult to do if its done by one type of player or the other. Those who like their variables set will always feel that order is an automatic choice because it is (for them). Those who like to roll the dice will go toward luck and wonder why anyone takes order at all.

IMHO whats needed is to maybe stretch the scales out abit so that all choices can be used to create a complete strategy for those who want to play that way. So its not so much whether the order takers feel luck is worth anything, just whether they feel order is worth using. And luck needs to be judged by the luck Users. I dont think we want them to both be desireable by both Groups. Just my opinion.

[ November 25, 2003, 16:48: Message edited by: Gandalf Parker ]

[licker]

Originally posted by Truper:
I think Johan may have hit the nail on the head when he said many gamers would rather count on the guaranteed income from order, than gamble on income from luck. But just because I share a little of G. Parker's desire to flout the conventional wisdom, I am currently using in MP a design with order 0, Luck +3. We're only on turn 7, which I realize is hardly a sufficent baseline for comparison, but: on turn 2 my worshippers held me a nice little ceremony which raised the dominion of my home province, and since then, I have had one 100 gold event, and one 200 gold event (events are common). A back of the envelope calculation suggests (and I'm too lazy to work it out more precisely) that I am slightly ahead in income compared to what I'd have had with order +3, and I had that little ceremony thrown in as a bonus. I enjoy positive luck scales, and wonder if the folks who enjoy and are good at extensive testing don't miss the boat when they do their tests as an either/or black/white comparison between order 3 misfortune 3 on the one hand, and turmoil 3 luck 3 on the other. I'll be interested to see if one of my fanatic followers can't locate say... a Ring of Wizardry sometime soon

Well the order/misfortune peole also have 120 more design points than you do with order zero and luck3. I think the idea is that the two scales are not balanced with respect to each other, and since they are directly connected there is a problem. That isn't to say that you can't succeed with your setup, or some more extreme luck based set up, just that over the long run you will need to stay ahead of the distribution of events. Other tests (though they only create a small sample) have shown that from a purely economic viewpoint order3 misforutune3 is the run away winner. It may not be as much fun to play for some people, true (and I'm one of those people), but in a competative environment its superior to the other choices.

What I am asking for is for the luck scale to be readdressed, so that it is not as digital as it seems to be now. I want luck to be a comperable choice to order from a competative stand point, even though I don't typically play very competatively

[johan osterman]

Originally posted by licker:

...
What I am asking for is for the luck scale to be readdressed, so that it is not as digital as it seems to be now.
...

There seem to be some misconceptions concerning the luck scale floating around. The major/minor tied to luck scale values events that people are requesting is to a degree present in the game. The 1500gp event is only for luck +3. IIRC the 1000gp is restricted to luck +2. There are events that exists in both common and rare forms where the event is rare at a certain value and common at a more extreme luck scale value. So the luck scale is not digitalised in the way you seem to be suggesting.

Well; the Devil's Advocate question is?

Johan you've had and played the game longer than any of us; you've played with the different situation.

If you wanted to win a MP game; and didn't have any "Fantasy" notions, or "Roleplaying" notions not using Ermor or any other Point Rich race/theme.

What % of the time do you choose Order and what % of the time do you choose Turmoil? Then the same for luck and misfortune.

[licker]

Originally posted by johan osterman:

quote:

---

Originally posted by licker:

...
What I am asking for is for the luck scale to be readdressed, so that it is not as digital as it seems to be now.
...

There seem to be some misconceptions concerning the luck scale floating around. The major/minor tied to luck scale values events that people are requesting is to a degree present in the game. The 1500gp event is only for luck +3. IIRC the 1000gp is restricted to luck +2. There are events that exists in both common and rare forms where the event is rare at a certain value and common at a more extreme luck scale value. So the luck scale is not digitalised in the way you seem to be suggesting.

---

Great, that's good to know.{edit- though I actually should have known that since I now recall an older discussion about it... anyway, my sugestion is that perhaps these classifications, especially on the bad event side be reevaluated} But how is it on the bad event side? I've gotten the lost a temple and 1/4 pop gone without misfortune +3, I think that's the issue that I have right now, the bad events that crop up even without misfortune +3 just seem to overwhelm the good events (even with higher levels of luck).

Though I will admit that I've not done alot of testing on this, but others have, and their results are out there.

Also quickie on the Lady of Fortune... what and how exactly does she effect luck? I've had her for 40+ turns now and only had one good event happen in her province (though with Order +3 I suppose that may negate some of her ability...)

[ November 25, 2003, 17:54: Message edited by: licker ]

[Keir Maxwell]

Originally posted by johan osterman:
If I read you correctly your desire is for pretenders with strong bless effects to still be viable. They are so in your mind because viable scale settings are more affordable than they were in dom2.

yup.

What I think is the problem with your argument is that if other scales were to be changed so that you percieved them as useful as the order scale you would feel compelled to raise them as well.

Nope - Its an absolute question of not having the points to get started not a relative scale of value. I'm lowering all my scales to the abo****e minimum I can and survive (hopefully) long term in order to get points for magic paths. I'm not going to raise one of my scales because its got a bit better because the only place to take the points off is magic - do that and the race dies as its the magic choices that define the entire race design. Some designs either work or don't in MP. Some designs could play with 120pts off and still work fine because they can still do the fundamental things they need to and get by.

Jasper the Medusa you mention is inadequate as a pretender for most of the bless effect races I'm working on. Earth mother with two 9's or Son of Niefel with Water 9, earth or nature 9, Lord of the Desert Sun with two 9's, Prince of Death with a 6 death and 9 water - these are the sort of pretenders I'm using. Only the very best sacred troops work as a basis for a race design, IMO, with one 9 or less to boost them and I'm more interested in the borderline sacred troops.

I'm generally playing drain3, Growth 0, and sloth2 or 3. Someone suggested I shouldn't take growth3?! If it were so easy I would indeed be blowing smoke. The only reason I don't play death as a norm is that its crazy to kill off the population in the only place that can build sacred troops.

On luck Johan there is for me one central consideration - MP games I'm in take a couple of months to play. Of course I don't want to get an earthquake on the first turn as my carefully crafted race (that I will probably never play again) suddenly can't start as planned and if I'm playing a borderline race design (and I generally am) that can mean can't start enough to be in the game. I don't take that risk. I'd rather weaken my race to avoid the chance - oddly enough in Dom II I don't have to as I just take order3/misfortune3. That is why I take order3/misfortune3 - to cope with luck not to get the gold - thats just a bonus. If you want to make order less effective in bringing in income I don't mind as I'm taking order for order not gold. Sure the gold is nice but its just not fundamental to what I'm trying to do and losing some of it will not break the back of the races - just slow them a bit.

I personally don't see the problem with improving specific races which should use turmoil and luck so that they are happy. I have been testing a nice looking Tuatha race with luck +1. If Barbarian Kings gets to recruit through the success of their Khans then playing turmoil won't bother me in the least and if recruiting is turmoil related I'll be +3 turmoil every time. As for Pangaea main theme I wouldn't play them without luck3/turmoil3 and don't see why they can't be a decent choice with a bit of tinkering if they aren't now. Turmoil should be bad for most but good for some in my opinion not a reasonable choice for anyone. How many races can play death3 and pretend its a decent choice?

I guess my approach to race design must be a bit odd as for me what is fundamental and obvious can't be seen be other perfectly intelligent human beings. If its just my particular bent that is at issue then go on - throw my toys away. If in fact the toys are only of interest to my particular subjective bent then they don't really matter to game as a whole. I still believe what I'm describing has a basis in objective reality based on my experiance of MP - my race designs tend to do very well - but of course this has little or no validity for others.

I know I'm trying to avoid balence questions and said I'd stay away, and sorry for stealing your Last word Johan, but when a developer joins in there is an added incentive. And maybe just maybe if I state the point in a different way people will get what I'm saying about the difference between quantitive increase in race power vs qualitive changes. Enough small changes makes for a completely different thing.

Ciao

Keir

[ November 25, 2003, 23:19: Message edited by: Keir Maxwell ]

[Catquiet]

Originally posted by Keir Maxwell:

Does it really matter that much if most players take order 3 misfortune 3? I think the extra points from this creates ideas I don't think this strangles ideas.

Keir [/QB]

You get those same "extra points" by taking Growth +0, instead of Growth +3. Lots of people do.

One of the problems with the game is that the Order scale is so good, people see Order +3 as the norm. They need to reduce the gold bonus of Order to +4% per tick and remove Order's effect on random events. Then you could take Order +0 and make your cool pretender without crippling your nation in multiplayer.

They also need to remove the population killing bad luck events to finish balancing out the Luck scale.

-Catquiet

[ November 25, 2003, 12:17: Message edited by: Catquiet ]

[Jasper]

Originally posted by Keir Maxwell:
Jasper the Medusa you mention is inadequate as a pretender for most of the bless effect races I'm working on. Earth mother with two 9's or Son of Niefel with Water 9, earth or nature 9, Lord of the Desert Sun with two 9's, Prince of Death with a 6 death and 9 water - these are the sort of pretenders I'm using. Only the very best sacred troops work as a basis for a race design, IMO, with one 9 or less to boost them and I'm more interested in the borderline sacred troops.

But it is still effective. One doesn't need to max out 2 blessings to have sacred troops be reasonably effective. To be frank, IMHO you're effectively asking for free points for your favorite designs.

I personally don't see the problem with improving specific races which should use turmoil and luck so that they are happy.

It would be simpler, more effective, and allow more variety to simply fix the inbalanced scales.

I have been testing a nice looking Tuatha race with luck +1.

I'm very keen to see how you get past spending 160 cost for luck +1 considering the minor benefits it gives. I found them to be way worse than default Man -- largely because then you can take Order3/Turmoil3.

If Barbarian Kings gets to recruit through the success of their Khans then playing turmoil won't bother me in the least and if recruiting is turmoil related I'll be +3 turmoil every time.

This is a dramatic and hard to balanced change, with a very narrow focus. I still don't think it's a good idea.

As for Pangaea main theme I wouldn't play them without luck3/turmoil3 and don't see why they can't be a decent choice with a bit of tinkering if they aren't now. Turmoil should be bad for most but good for some in my opinion not a reasonable choice for anyone. How many races can play death3 and pretend its a decent choice?

I'll repeat myself here: O3/M3 gets more than 50% extra income over T3/L3. The generally minor benefits from luck don't even come close to offseting this, and you get more bad events to boot.

Your arguement that Turmoil should have bad effects and not be a reasonable choice for all doesn't jibe with your arguement for free points from Misfortune.

If its just my particular bent that is at issue then go on - throw my toys away.

I think you are grossly overexaggering. Fixing Order doesn't "throw your toys away", it only tones them down -- and allows for much greater variety elsewhere.

To me you are simply saying "I won't be able to easily max out 2 blessings by taking free points from Misfortune", rather than "Races with strong blessings won't be effective if Order is balanced". I would consider the 2nd a problem, but not the first.

[Jasper]

Originally posted by johan osterman:
First of all I still think that the bad luck events are not that much of a problem, not compared with the income loss. The 66% income of turmoil 3 to order 3 dominates the effect of the badluck events themselves. So if order -3 luck +3 is less viable than order +3 luck -3 it is in my mind much more to the constant income loss rather than the effects of negative events. It is highly unlikely that bad events will come remotely close to having as much of a negative impact as the turmoil will.

Definitely the income lost is just too much, and way more of a factor than the bad events.

I hope this doesn't come out as sounding condescending, but I believe many dominions players tend to overestimate risk compared to predictable loss, many strategy players seem to be very averse to random factors and I think this is reflected in the negative press the badluck events get. The sense I get from much of the discussion is that players worry more about the hurricanes and floods than they do about the income loss from turmoil.

However, I partially disagree with this. The bad events really are worse than the good events on average in my experience, over and above players being risk adverse.

Bad events are always bad, suffer from increasing decrements, and are more likely to destroy something critical permanently than good events are to give a permanent increase.

Good events are often not usefull, sometimes even harmfull, have decreasing increments, and are likely to be minor things like gems or worthless troops. There are occasionally _very_ usefull things -- but these are rare.

Good events I usually see: Random worthless troops, small amounts of possibly usefull gems, usually unusefull items, laughable increases in province defense, etc. Hero, Gold and mine events also crop up, but are relatively rare. Very often "good" events don't actually improve my position.

Bad events I usually see: Gold lost through unrest, event, or province loss. Temple and lab destruction. Permanent income reduction. Theft of stuff I was planning on using. Bad events typically hurt my position.

I'm not really sure why, and perhaps my tests are just skewed, but the balance of possible good vs. bad events seems substantially different from Dom 1.

[ywl]

Originally posted by Jasper:

quote:

---

Originally posted by johan osterman:
First of all I still think that the bad luck events are not that much of a problem, not compared with the income loss. The 66% income of turmoil 3 to order 3 dominates the effect of the badluck events themselves. So if order -3 luck +3 is less viable than order +3 luck -3 it is in my mind much more to the constant income loss rather than the effects of negative events. It is highly unlikely that bad events will come remotely close to having as much of a negative impact as the turmoil will.

Definitely the income lost is just too much, and way more of a factor than the bad events.

I hope this doesn't come out as sounding condescending, but I believe many dominions players tend to overestimate risk compared to predictable loss, many strategy players seem to be very averse to random factors and I think this is reflected in the negative press the badluck events get. The sense I get from much of the discussion is that players worry more about the hurricanes and floods than they do about the income loss from turmoil.

However, I partially disagree with this. The bad events really are worse than the good events on average in my experience, over and above players being risk adverse.

Bad events are always bad, suffer from increasing decrements, and are more likely to destroy something critical permanently than good events are to give a permanent increase.

Good events are often not usefull, sometimes even harmfull, have decreasing increments, and are likely to be minor things like gems or worthless troops. There are occasionally _very_ usefull things -- but these are rare.

Good events I usually see: Random worthless troops, small amounts of possibly usefull gems, usually unusefull items, laughable increases in province defense, etc. Hero, Gold and mine events also crop up, but are relatively rare. Very often "good" events don't actually improve my position.

Bad events I usually see: Gold lost through unrest, event, or province loss. Temple and lab destruction. Permanent income reduction. Theft of stuff I was planning on using. Bad events typically hurt my position.

I'm not really sure why, and perhaps my tests are just skewed, but the balance of possible good vs. bad events seems substantially different from Dom 1.

---

I don't really see the good events that minor. I'm not sure you've never seen it or just unintentionally missed it while writing.

There are equivalents or even mirror images of the bad events: there are permanent increase of province income and resource, increase of population from migration, random temples and laboratories - though usually not in the right places - or even castles...

In Dom 2, you can also get some very good commanders from a few new events - wind master, lore master and the stalker (that ethereal assasain).

I don't know. As Gandalf Parker said, the gambler in me always like luck. I've not battle-tested Dom 2 enough to form a solid judgement but of course, the income decrease from Chao scale is significant.