Stability events

[unmerged(18802)]

Is it just me or do you seem to get far more -stability events when your stability is low and you are investing lots of gold to get it back up?

It always seems to happen *just* as you've pulled yourself out of a nasty spell at -3 and things are getting back to normal....before you know it "Political Crisis" and you're back where you started! It's had me quit the game more than once....

Anyone know the formulas regarding these events?

 

[unmerged(51378)]

I believe so. That's my experience, at least...

 

[unmerged(39704)]

that's what makes the game fun.It would be boring when you become hyperpower annexing everything without these events

 

[unmerged(5822)]

It's karmic balance in action.
Did you do something impure or otherwise naughty in the game?

 

[unmerged(51378)]

You normally are a *little* nasty...

 

[DSYoungEsq]

Random is random, except for those few times when the RNG gets stuck. If it does, save and restart the game.

 

[unmerged(3931)]

It is human nature to look for patterns even where none exist. It probably seems more likely to have negative stability events when your stability is low because those are the times when low stability is most stressing you out and so it is more memorable than other times. I fall prey to superstitions of my own at times.

 

[unmerged(12435)]

It´s quite logical why it happens - there is far more negative events than positive events. So that´s why they happen all the time.

As player, you are doing good things for your empire..and random events are doing the opposite..but they will never win!!

 

[GrimPagan]

I always seems to get +2 stabs events when I am at +3? The game seems to insist on annoying me.

 

[unmerged(32886)]

I always seems to get +2 stabs events when I am at +3? The game seems to insist on annoying me.

Yeap. Or the "heir has born event" which gives +1 stab. I've encountered it several times, but always (yes always) when I'm at +3. :wacko:

 

[unmerged(49508)]

Yeap. Or the "heir has born event" which gives +1 stab. I've encountered it several times, but always (yes always) when I'm at +3. :wacko:

Don't worry about that. A political crisis at -3 compensates for that

 

[Sleepyhead]

Yeap. Or the "heir has born event" which gives +1 stab. I've encountered it several times, but always (yes always) when I'm at +3. :wacko:

Don't they have triggers so they won't fire when you got stability = 3?

 

[unmerged(49508)]

Don't they have triggers so they won't fire when you got stability = 3?

No, unless of course you have edited the events file. I am not sure if it could be regarded as cheating.

I always wanted to know how random events are happening. I fear no one knows the answer but I ask anyhow. So from time to time an event fires and a random number generator decides which. It also should be checked if the country is eligible for the event (slider settings, tech level, etc). What I want to know is that if the eligibility (nice word, eh?) is checked before or after the choice. If the check is later, then the event simply does not fire, while in the other case, when time comes there is surely one event to happen.

Now, why is it important? If the above mentioned check follows the choice, then the editing of the 'Heir to the throne' event simply not displayed and thus helps game satisfaction. But if the choice follows the check, then editing the event will disqualify it from the eligible events and thus alter probabilities of other events to happen. In this case editing would be an argueable operation to make.

Of course I don't see it as a crucial problem, but I am one of those purist who don't like interrupting into game mechanics.

 

[CatKnight]

Like ws2_32 says - it just SEEMS to happen more often when you're stressed. I've seen the positive stability events save my bacon more than once. During the game I'm playing now I found myself muttering about how I'd always get CB events when I wasn't ready to go to war. Annoying. But I thought about it, and of course there are other times I DID use CB events to my advantage. Right now I'm muttering because I keep getting diplomatic insults from my vassals....

 

[unmerged(14102)]

No, unless of course you have edited the events file. I am not sure if it could be regarded as cheating.

I always wanted to know how random events are happening. I fear no one knows the answer but I ask anyhow. So from time to time an event fires and a random number generator decides which. It also should be checked if the country is eligible for the event (slider settings, tech level, etc). What I want to know is that if the eligibility (nice word, eh?) is checked before or after the choice. If the check is later, then the event simply does not fire, while in the other case, when time comes there is surely one event to happen.

Now, why is it important? If the above mentioned check follows the choice, then the editing of the 'Heir to the throne' event simply not displayed and thus helps game satisfaction. But if the choice follows the check, then editing the event will disqualify it from the eligible events and thus alter probabilities of other events to happen. In this case editing would be an argueable operation to make.

Of course I don't see it as a crucial problem, but I am one of those purist who don't like interrupting into game mechanics.

Triggers are before the timing in the event code. Unless the compiler re-orders the sequence [possible, but not likely], then the executable is the same order.

So for a random, or any other event to occur, the checks are:

• random
• triggers
• date timing

Event are checked every day AFAIK, so more event can really 'load' up the cycle.

 

[George LeS]

Triggers are before the timing in the event code. Unless the compiler re-orders the sequence [possible, but not likely], then the executable is the same order.

So for a random, or any other event to occur, the checks are:

• random
• triggers
• date timing

Event are checked every day AFAIK, so more event can really 'load' up the cycle.

The one thing not mentioned is when/how it decides to trigger an event at all. From the above, I'd guess the sequence is really:
1. Decide if an event may fire.
2. Decide which event.
3. Test triggers.
4. Test date.

Am I reading this right?

 

[Ayeshteni]

Its called sods law.

It happens to me all the time. Same with Ebbeson's doolally monarch events. I only seem to get them with great monarchs. My finest (if you can use such a word in this context) example was Gustavus Vasa as Sweden.

Vasa comes to power with great stats, before you know it, he is a dribbling, megolomaniacal, compulsively obsessed Paranoid Schizo. It hurt, it really did - on top of which I was determined to get my colonies (and small cities) above a population of 5000 on the Scandinavian peninsula - everytime I kept getting sodding plague events in my small cities before I could reach it, grrrrrrrrrrraaaaaaaarrrrrgh. I have a thread on it somewhere (from last year or the year before, a loooooooong time back)

it isn't random, the game knows, it just knows what you are trying to do and it stabs you in the back. Isn't it wonderful.

Ayeshteni

 

[unmerged(3931)]

it isn't random, the game knows, it just knows what you are trying to do and it stabs you in the back. Isn't it wonderful.

Yes, I really fall into this line of thinking so much. But of course, if the game knew what I was trying to do and was trying to stop it, the AI would be much better functioning. Characterizing the game as having a mystical super intelligence property while the intentionally coded artificial intelligence functions at such an admittedly low level is silly.

 

[Waffen9999]

I know the feeling about negative stability. I'm playing Russia in AGCEEP and during the time of trouble and for the 5 years after it I never got above -2 stability. I'd get to -2 and then bam get hit with sometime else, as well as *2* unhappiness among the peasantry revolts. The big ones that span half your empire. I'm surprised I didn't disintegrate into civil war.

 

[DSYoungEsq]

Yes, I really fall into this line of thinking so much. But of course, if the game knew what I was trying to do and was trying to stop it, the AI would be much better functioning. Characterizing the game as having a mystical super intelligence property while the intentionally coded artificial intelligence functions at such an admittedly low level is silly.

Actually, Tom, that is faulty logic. Just because it is poor at what it does doesn't mean it doesn't have a malevolent purpose behind it all.