The most dreadful (random) event?

[JimMorrison]

At first I thought Zeldor was using reverse psychology to argue just for a Luck buff, not a Misf nerf.

What a strange world we live in.


Though Edi, arguing Misf 3 doesn't really work, it's rarely taken. The 80 points from Misf 2 aren't going to offset a knight attack on turn 3, nothing will. But I'm not arguing a point, those who take the Misfortune are taking a calculated risk that with current game mechanics, they are getting a measurably better long term benefit with O3/Mis2, than with T2/L3.

If you can't stomach that risk, then go even scales, no one is holding a gun to your head.

[Zeldor]

JimMorrison:

Like unrest events won't hit you if you take Luck They are just less likely.

I think that Misfortune is bad enough, but Luck is not good enough to use your points on it. Luck0 is not worth 80 points either. Luck should increase chance to get a hero by 2-3% per tick, event limit should be removed and militia events should be replaced by national unit events where it is not done yet.

[chrispedersen]

Originally Posted by Edi

Bad events are the whole bloody point of misfortune. If you take it, then you run the risk of being ruined by that misfortune early on, tough luck. Even if it does cost you the game in the first few turns. On the other hand, with Misfortune 3, you just got 120 points extra to spend on dominion, magic paths and/or other scales which should presumably offset the problems of the misfortune scale.

Misfortune is already one of the most widely used scales, so why the hell should it be nerfed just so people can feel they can safely take it? Can anyone give me any actual viable reason why this should be?

The best solution I can see is increasing the maximum number of possible events per turn, as that would scale both luck and misfortune a lot better, especially in large games.

The problem is edi, as I tried to point out before, is that other people pay the price for *you* taking unluck. I'm not talking scales.

If a player takes misfortune 3.. and gets knocked out of the game on turn 1 - or even in the first year - it unbalances the game for the remaining players.

[Meursy]

Originally Posted by chrispedersen

The problem is edi, as I tried to point out before, is that other people pay the price for *you* taking unluck. I'm not talking scales.

If a player takes misfortune 3.. and gets knocked out of the game on turn 1 - or even in the first year - it unbalances the game for the remaining players.

I've got to say I don't really see the logic in this argument, that taking Misfortune costs all other players in the game. I mean players can get knocked out early for any number of reasons, including a host of real-life issues cropping up causing a withdrawal, simple incompetence (you know, damn, my uber-Markata rush tactic just didn't work out this time!) and, of course, bad luck of the regular kind (having one's expansion force wiped out early next to a powerful early-game nation through an inadvertent meeting, for instance).

So what to we do against these other things? Soul Contracts for all MP participants promising infernal retribution if they ever ever leave the game? Application of The Sickle Whose Crop Is Pain to the scrotums of those whose early game is considered inadequate?

I mean people get knocked out relatively early in nice normal no alarms no surprises games (at least I gather from reading the forums).

In a current game of mine three players including myself ganged on one, and when his resistance broke one of the three was in position to sweep up the bulk of the rushee's provinces while we were recovering from the fighting.

The rushee himself had expanded beyond all other nations early in the game, possibly due to the fact my own expansion had been less than optimal (I refer you to the 'incompetence' point made earlier).

Both these events were quite 'unbalancing' in the sense that one player set up a massive empire far outstripping the other players in the game.

But so what? That's every game!

Perhaps the most unbalancing thing about early misfortune events (again taking this from comments earlier in the thread) is that the people getting such events decide to go AI, when a bit of elbow grease could at least make them competitive and stop those lucky bastard neighbouring nations from sweeping in for easy pickings. This obviously doesn't apply when you get your cap sieged by indy's before you own another province (which must be horrendously unlucky; how often does that happen anyway?)

It's a lack of respect for 'game balance' that's the real problem! Play it out misfortunteers!

[JimMorrison]

Honestly, the most breathing room I would think fair at all, is 2 turns, global lack of unlucky events - just to establish the playing field.

Beyond that, no complaints - you bought, or sold the scales - now live with them!

I've said it before, and I still believe it. I would rather be taken out early 9 times out of 10, and win once, than play out 10 mediocre games where I never had the faintest whiff of victory. So if that horrid unluck event happens at the start, then smile, thank everyone, bow out and join another game. No one can actually hate you for being sieged by knights and having your lab burned down.

[Jarkko]

Luck would be much more viable if:

1) The cap for number of random events would be higher
2) The generic event for militia would be replaced by events generating national troops (or at least replaced by the event generating fanatics; at least the fanatics are sacred so they don't have lower upkeep and can actually be quite good for a while if you have nice blesses)
3) Luck scale would totally prevent bad events and instead fire only good events for the first N turns of the game, where N = Luck-scale x 2

[JimMorrison]

Originally Posted by Jarkko

Luck would be much more viable if:

1) The cap for number of random events would be higher
2) The generic event for militia would be replaced by events generating national troops (or at least replaced by the event generating fanatics; at least the fanatics are sacred so they don't have lower upkeep and can actually be quite good for a while if you have nice blesses)
3) Luck scale would totally prevent bad events and instead fire only good events for the first N turns of the game, where N = Luck-scale x 2

1) Would "fix" it alone.
2) Also needs to be done, getting a horde of militia is quite unlucky.
3) < shrug >

[Herode]

3 - Horror !! I love bad events, even when I buy Luck
It's for suspense and so on, you know. OK, I confess I mostly play for fun, not for winning (although I also love winning but this seldom happens, maybe by unfair unluck ).

I agree with 2, and strongly !

About 1, I'm dubious. Too many random events => random game.

Originally Posted by JimMorrison

Honestly, the most breathing room I would think fair at all, is 2 turns, global lack of unlucky events - just to establish the playing field.

+0.5. Global lack of any event, unlucky or not.

[Olive]

Originally Posted by Zeldor

JimMorrison:

Like unrest events won't hit you if you take Luck They are just less likely.

I think that Misfortune is bad enough, but Luck is not good enough to use your points on it. Luck0 is not worth 80 points either. Luck should increase chance to get a hero by 2-3% per tick, event limit should be removed and militia events should be replaced by national unit events where it is not done yet.

I don't think luck is that worthless. With high luck, random events can bring you a lot of money, several items, and more important, gems of types you may not get with the usual Order/Misfortune.

[JimMorrison]

Originally Posted by Olive

I don't think luck is that worthless. With high luck, random events can bring you a lot of money, several items, and more important, gems of types you may not get with the usual Order/Misfortune.

I often take Luck scales. It's not that I don't like them, but I do understand the reasoning of those who don't. But with scales builds, with certain nations, I'd rather have the Luck than anything else I could buy for those points.