|
Post by Linde (x-GM) on Dec 8, 2015 12:23:47 GMT
Some actions can potentially influence the chances of events.
Finances (court) can be used once each turn without risk of a negative event. Each subsequent use will have a cumulative 5% risk of generating a negative event. The cumulative risk is reset every year (4 turns)
|
|
|
Post by x-Mercia(Cerberus) on Dec 8, 2015 16:45:59 GMT
Some actions can potentially influence the chances of events. Finances (court) can be used once each turn without risk of a negative event. Each subsequent use will have a cumulative 5% risk of generating a negative event. The cumulative risk is reset every year (4 turns) Does it matter whether the finance action fail or succeeds, you mentioned that yeasterday, not sure if you changed you mind, or?
|
|
|
Post by Linde (x-GM) on Dec 8, 2015 17:23:41 GMT
Some actions can potentially influence the chances of events. Finances (court) can be used once each turn without risk of a negative event. Each subsequent use will have a cumulative 5% risk of generating a negative event. The cumulative risk is reset every year (4 turns) Does it matter whether the finance action fail or succeeds, you mentioned that yeasterday, not sure if you changed you mind, or? I thought about that, but I think this will limit the use of the action to an 'acceptable' level. (it is bad enough that you just lost the 1GB you invested into the action, no need to throw salt in that wound)
|
|
|
Post by x-Mercia(Cerberus) on Dec 8, 2015 18:00:48 GMT
Does it matter whether the finance action fail or succeeds, you mentioned that yeasterday, not sure if you changed you mind, or? I thought about that, but I think this will limit the use of the action to an 'acceptable' level. (it is bad enough that you just lost the 1GB you invested into the action, no need to throw salt in that wound) Well this might be worse since you can't "take 10" you way ourt of the risk, I'll have to look into how bad "bad" events are. Just to be sure I get it Turn 1 2 finance actions. Second one has a 5% risk of a bad event Turn 2 3 Finance action. second and third has a 10% and 15% risk of bad event turn 3. No finance action Turn 4 2 Finance actions second carrier a 20% risk of bad event (risc not reduced by 1 turn inactive) Turn 5 Risk resets Also I asume the risk resets at new year not after year after first risk for easier bookkeping. Is that all correct?
|
|
|
Post by Linde (x-GM) on Dec 8, 2015 18:17:26 GMT
A negative event that is the result of a finance action will require an applicable domain or court action to resolve and end the negative effect.
The negative effect will range from loss of income to prosperity/stability or province/holding level loss. (With income & prosperity loss being the most likely.)
|
|
James Holt (NT)
Northern Traders
Lord of Waffles, Master of the flight of Daggers
The Iron Bank of Albion
Posts: 366
|
Post by James Holt (NT) on Apr 3, 2018 10:18:53 GMT
Does it matter whether the finance action fail or succeeds, you mentioned that yeasterday, not sure if you changed you mind, or? I thought about that, but I think this will limit the use of the action to an 'acceptable' level. (it is bad enough that you just lost the 1GB you invested into the action, no need to throw salt in that wound) Case in point - since it's come up for me - you're paying 2GB for the action (1 for the action, 1 for court upkeep). I had 2 finances actions "succeed" for a net loss of 1GB and nontrivial reshuffling of a domain turns actions after investing 2 court actions (and a regent action in the subsequent clearing up of the negative event). Assuming you can stack a +10 modifier to your finances check and take 10, 2 finances actions will net you an average of 3GB (with a fair likelihood of no/negative income) while locking up a good chunk of your court. I am not sure it needs a gotcha event on top to further reduce its usefulness - especially if you're threatening stability loss over something that gives 1.5GB on average.
|
|
|
Post by Turn Processing Assistant on Apr 3, 2018 11:21:58 GMT
Case in point - since it's come up for me - you're paying 2GB for the action (1 for the action, 1 for court upkeep). I had 2 finances actions "succeed" for a net loss of 1GB and nontrivial reshuffling of a domain turns actions after investing 2 court actions (and a regent action in the subsequent clearing up of the negative event). Assuming you can stack a +10 modifier to your finances check and take 10, 2 finances actions will net you an average of 3GB (with a fair likelihood of no/negative income) while locking up a good chunk of your court. I am not sure it needs a gotcha event on top to further reduce its usefulness - especially if you're threatening stability loss over something that gives 1.5GB on average. I would point out that the 1GB for the action can be reduced by administration and that the court upkeep component is (C-2)/C GB where C = court level so it's marginally better than average 3GB from 2 court actions. If you break down the cost-benefit analysis to such a narrow calculus then it's a moderate ROI with a moderate risk. Of course that cost-benefit analysis ignores the other benefits of court expenditure, like court modifier to actions and number of AA's maintained.
|
|
James Holt (NT)
Northern Traders
Lord of Waffles, Master of the flight of Daggers
The Iron Bank of Albion
Posts: 366
|
Post by James Holt (NT) on Apr 3, 2018 11:30:08 GMT
Ignoring for a moment that my +15 administrator has failed to administrate for 4 consecutive turns, that's still only 0.1GB extra you're likely to see per action. The narrow calculus also ignores lost oppertunity to use the actions for other things (research, supporting decrees, hire help, realm actions etc).
Anyway, bringing it up because I'd like to discuss it. It seems like a thematically appropriate thing for guilds to be doing, and I think the listed risk of extra penalty on top of generate wealth already having a 1 in 6 chance of being negative income on a successful roll kind of messes with the thing we're supposedly good at. When I heard there was a thread with actions I was kind of expecting there to be similar things to curb other domain types (cumultative risk of annoyed god/nobles from stacked blessing/agitate? Mana headache for spamming lots of realm spells?).
|
|
|
Post by ET (Kerberos) on Apr 3, 2018 11:57:44 GMT
Ignoring for a moment that my +15 administrator has failed to administrate for 4 consecutive turns, that's still only 0.1GB extra you're likely to see per action. The narrow calculus also ignores lost oppertunity to use the actions for other things (research, supporting decrees, hire help, realm actions etc). Anyway, bringing it up because I'd like to discuss it. It seems like a thematically appropriate thing for guilds to be doing, and I think the listed risk of extra penalty on top of generate wealth already having a 1 in 6 chance of being negative income on a successful roll kind of messes with the thing we're supposedly good at. When I heard there was a thread with actions I was kind of expecting there to be similar things to curb other domain types (cumultative risk of annoyed god/nobles from stacked blessing/agitate? Mana headache for spamming lots of realm spells?). When I made the objection (I'm X-mercia for those who don't know) it was in the beginning of the game where realms wher poorer (meaning the amount generated where larger as a percentage, and I also didn't realize how much you needed court actions of all sort of other things. I don't think we necesarilly need to change it back (Fincance action are kind of boring I think) but I also don't think it would be game breaking if we did.
|
|
|
Post by Maelgwyn ap Cadwgan (TOG) on Apr 3, 2018 13:22:46 GMT
I agree that the finance action is a marginally effective action on average, but it is a decent action when put besides its only comperable brother; the loan action. Decree: Finance is something every realm uses, is thematicaly appropriate for just about every realm, and it is somewhat of a wildcard. An action specifically aimed at guild realms would be the Trade Venture one. If there is a finance action that could use work, it is the loan action.
One cannot use the cost of maintaining a court in the calculation of the effectiveness of one specific court action, without also using it the same with every other action type that relies on said court expenditure. At that moment finance actually starts to look quite good compared to the money and action sink that certain types of actions are.
We've already had changes to Realm Magic with serious implications due to the consistent interference of a player who did not himself use it. Please, just do not also start using the 'I feel other people's completely unrelated domains should be harrassed because I'm not happy with a certain action' line. The amount of effort in actions, GB and RP put into Divine Realm Magic for one makes the comparison pale. I know written text does not always transfer emotion well but imagine that said with a tired smile.
If we talk about it, lets do it action per (comperative) action?
|
|
James Holt (NT)
Northern Traders
Lord of Waffles, Master of the flight of Daggers
The Iron Bank of Albion
Posts: 366
|
Post by James Holt (NT) on Apr 3, 2018 13:35:38 GMT
I agree that the finance action is a marginally effective action on average, but it is a decent action when put besides its only comperable brother; the loan action. Decree: Finance is something every realm uses, is thematicaly appropriate for just about every realm, and it is somewhat of a wildcard. If I recall correctly, the 2 events I've gotten from finance were -gb and +x% cost to everything I was doing until resolved by ruler action (and when you're building things and raising troops that adds up fast). I was told I was "really unlucky" but it still feels like a gut punch. While I agree the Loan action RAW is trash, there's 3 player guilds and 2 NPC guilds. It's highly unlikely you've managed to anger all 5 of them (6 if you count the slavers) off. I took the awfulness of the loan action as encouragement to interact with your fellow domains. I know I try to offer better terms than the loan action does. (Assuming NT likes you, you're usually offered something equivalent to rolling 5's or 6's on a loan action which can be paid back over multiple turns instead of just 1). I agree it's a bit muddy. I'd counter-argue that the specific purpose of the finance action is to generate money. The other court actions that cost money are meant to generate another effect and they do this without fail and without negative events on a successful roll. Unlike finances, which can end up costing money and generating some very painful events speaking from experience. The blow-by-blow example (that I'll admit I'm a little butthurt about) is as follows: Turn 16: Chancellor fails 5+ roll to administrate expenses Generate wealth x3 (-3GB, +11GB) -- Start of multi-generate chain, so 10% chance Turn 16 event: Haha! You lose money! Turn 17: Chancellor fails 5+ roll to administrate expenses Ruler espionage: resolve event Generate wealth (-1GB) -> (+1GB) Generate Wealth (-1GB) -> (+6GB) -- New year, 5% chance Turn 17 event: Haha, the dice hate you! Lose more money! +10% cost to everything you do next turn Turn 18: Chancellor fails 5+ roll to administrate expenses Ruler espionage to resolve event Ruler espionage to trace event (and be told that dice hat you and it's not another domain -- this was the first time I was informed that multi-finance could generate events as the 2015 thread had escaped me until today) Stop doing almost everything for a turn to bring expenses down to 27GB (+2.7GB event tax) -- mustering comes to screeching halt Turn 19: Chancellor fails 5+ roll to administrate expenses
|
|
|
Post by Maelgwyn ap Cadwgan (TOG) on Apr 3, 2018 13:51:27 GMT
(NT, for your information I'd just made a small edit above. Oh and I see you've edited yours.)
As I said, I agree that finance can be marginally effective. I've personally had the same type of event, that incidently made another that I'd almost resolved after several turns of effort worse again.
I did not endeavour to say the Loan action has to be worked on right now, I just used it as comparison. In fact as you've mentioned, I take my loans from PC/NPC's which leads to story being generated and thus the inherent trashiness of the action has in fact led to better play.
The specific purpose by description of the finance action is to create money by doing creative bookkeeping or the like. The description leads me to agree with the cumulative chance for bad consequences. (I'm sure that if we keep repackaging faulty credit into A+ bonds no one will notice.)
From a pure game point of view, not having a cumulative penalty balance on the action would lead to people with large courts and expert administrators to create money out of thin air on a serious scale. and, considering they (we) have those administrators they also would not have to be afraid of the Failure part of the action ever triggering. I realize it might very well not generate any money when doing 4 of these action per turn, on the other hand it might generate a good 20 GB without even the chance for consequence. At that moment anyone without such a court and without the opportunity to have one can pack up and go home.
(That said, you have my condolences. That's a hurtful chain of events. It is unfortunate you did not know about the penalty however as it could have been prevented/calculated in your actions. Likewise, I think you might not be upset about it then. In this case, you did not manage to factor it in and thus were confronted with the results. Likely leading to the line of thought behind the specifique critique of the action.)
|
|
James Holt (NT)
Northern Traders
Lord of Waffles, Master of the flight of Daggers
The Iron Bank of Albion
Posts: 366
|
Post by James Holt (NT) on Apr 3, 2018 14:06:51 GMT
The specific purpose by description of the finance action is to create money by doing creative bookkeeping or the like. The description leads me to agree with the cumulative chance for bad consequences. (I'm sure that if we keep repackaging faulty credit into A+ bonds no one will notice.) Ruler guide specifies it as "Generating small income in a temporary way, like selling off assets, creative bookkeeping etc). Most of my actions were fluffed as stuf flike "Promote new forge techniques to reduce waste iron", "Sell elven artwork to foppish Camelot nobles" (after we had just expanded umbrian guilds), "Invest in scribe training to prevent idiotic rounding errors" (After first "haha you lose money!" event whose origin I didn't know). So I never registered them as doing something paticularly shady. [edit] Oh, and after all the showing off of my giant army last turn with a tournament event, there's a finance action labelled: "Market 'warden quality steel' knives to capitalize on the impressive showmanship at the tourney" -- because that's the kind of thing you do when you just had a bunch of knights show off to raise peasant morale/region prosperity
|
|
|
Post by Mercia(andreas) on Apr 3, 2018 14:13:07 GMT
Mercian use of Generate income have generally been market price manipulations fluffed using our trade holding, like buying grain and firewood in summer and autumn and selling in winter, and thus manipulate prices to be more profitable for the Queens holdings. (Even if i have not updated the fluff text as much as i should)
|
|
|
Post by ET (Kerberos) on Apr 3, 2018 14:19:08 GMT
Umbria tend to auction of land.
|
|