Random events and huts.

[TheMeInTeam]

It's all a matter of degree. Any game that has an rgn has luck. Just because I play with a little more doesn't mean it's not competitive. Are you saying that if you play random leaders, it's not competitive? It's that type of snobby thinking that turns off a lot of players.

I guess it depends what you mean when you say competitive. Can you have a game with random leaders on a crap MP map like fractal and still have everyone play to win? Sure. However not even the best will be able to overcome some of the things that would happen.

Could you have such settings and then reasonably claim the winner is the best player? Not a chance.

Quite the tribute to the community. I'm always impressed with the amount of discussions here for a game that is so old.

Civ's community is one of the greatest things about it. There are precious few forums that can even kind of sort of come close to CFC in terms of being active/reasonable/etc. I admit the existence of this community has been a major factor in me playing the game for so long.

 

[rah]

Could you have such settings and then reasonably claim the winner is the best player? Not a chance.

This is the issue. No we don't claim the winner is the best player. If you play with the same group of guys, you eventually figure out who's better than the others. Let's say you were doing a ladder type scoring and two guys were separated by just a few points. I don't think you could say the person with just a few more was necessarily a better player. The RGN alone means the game isn't exactly equal.
I think players that do well after getting crappy breaks is the true test of who's a better player. Not someone that follows the same formula each game. (even though some of them are pretty damn good)
It's just a difference of opinion. When I was younger, I probably would have agreed with you, but I look at things a bit differently now. AND most importantly, it's just MY opinion. Which everyone is allowed to mock as necessary. It's the quality of the discussion that is valuable.

 

[Cort Haus]

Surely the only way to have a truly level competitive playing field is for each player to start with identical land (is this what a mirror map does?) and the same traits, UU, UB and starting techs.

 

[ParadigmShifter]

And make the RNG the same for everyone.

Or you could just play a chess/civ hybrid.

"A2 is building a pawn (10 turns)". Tech path: Knights (25 turns)

 

[TheMeInTeam]

RNG outcomes that are entered at player discretion are different from RNG outcomes that no amount of strategy controls.

For example, in Halo there are both RNG and player-choice control elements to where you respawn after death. However, nobody serious about their play impacting the game in halo would reasonably want a 1/10 chance of spawning with a rocket launcher and having that decide the outcome of matches on occasion.

A lot of events in civ IV can be reasonably compared to spawning with a rocket launcher when nobody else does, at random. That might be a fun mod to play, but it isn't something that is rational to put into a competition.

 

[Sojuz]

Oh no please, don't turn Civ into a chess game, i fail at chess, my gamer story began with Simcity then Civilization not some windows chess game .

 

[rah]

A lot of events in civ IV can be reasonably compared to spawning with a rocket launcher when nobody else does, at random. That might be a fun mod to play, but it isn't something that is rational to put into a competition.

If there was just one event a game, I might agree with you. Or if you only played one game. But over the course of many games, it's going to even out. JUST like the rng controlling combat. No rational person can claim to be the best player based on one game. (even thought I've seen many that do) It's only over a course of games that a person can truly claim that. It's the diversity that tests ability.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

Competitions like HoF, XOTM, tournament series, etc don't exactly have a chance to "even out after many games". Comparison games aren't really comparable with huts or events.

 

[rah]

And in those circumstances I believe I have already agreed with you. (if not, I agree now)
I don't usually participate in those types of games so it's not an issue to me.
Do you consider the player that scores the most points possible the "best player" based on one game. Performance in one game does denote ability, but not the greatness that some confer on it. I think that only comes after considerable history. I can tell there are a few people here that are better than I just based on their history of posts. I'm here poking the bear a bit just to encourage discussion with some of them. It's just a game. If I didn't enjoy it and discussing it, there would be no reason to play it. Some of the other sites that I visit don't have the quality of players that this site has.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

Well, outside of those kinds of games there's no reason to forgo any type of setting. Even very unbalanced mods like civ gold with its 3 str aggressive warrior and super catapult UUs can be fun to play.

 

[madmenno]

Imo for straight multiplayer random events won't matter much more then any other game of civ. If you play MP with 8 people it's likely one will start off with just a cow and a silk tile in his capitol surrounded by dessert while another player has 1 corn, 2 gold a couple of floodplains and on top of that pops a horse when AH is researched. So as far as real MP goes it's not very competitive and it's one of the two reasons i never got into MP. The other one is that it's slow .

Personally i like to mix it around, truthfully i like random events, i used to always play with them. But as already mentioned in this thread a couple of times losing that forge or getting a revolt that let's you miss a wonder by a turn or 2 is disastrous for real competitive play like the challenges or gauntlets. The reason these are competitive is that everyone is allowed to regenerate and play as many maps they want. And since games take long and reloading is not allowed betting on a streak of good events is very time consuming.

 

[uat2d]

Randoms events break the game as they can just act as "you win" or "you lose" events and huts are just dull and can be extremely unfair, a Roman player can either get Iron Working in the first 10 turns or spawn 3 archers which then kills the player just like that off the game.

Also, it's awful having to build tons of factories because yours burn down all the time or having 3 or 4 full health enemy default units spawn in their capitol each time you raze one of his cities, even if it's only lvl 1.

 

[rah]

I think the "break the game" things are not that frequent. And I think civ is a better game when you add the **** happens factor. Just my opinion of course.
Over the course of this discussion I think I now appreciate the other side of this argument a bit more due to the insightful responses from others.

 

[Tatran]

With huts on, the game becomes less predictable in the early stage.
The early religions will always be founded by civs with Mysticism as starting tech.
In a recent game I saw Shaka going for an early religion, first Meditation and later Polytheism. Both religions were founded by other leaders.

Also, peacefull leaders almost never have a chance against a warmonger.
See picture. Gandhi and Hatshepsut both got the upperhand against Genghis Khan and Tokugawa.

Spoiler :

 

[Zx Zero Zx]

They either make the game way to easy or way to hard. There is no middle ground, and events are just there to troll you.

 

[rah]

I think there is a middle ground. There are many many lower impact events that add color. And listening to my brother whine when he loses a forge for the 2nd or 3rd time makes it all worth it.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

I think the "break the game" things are not that frequent. And I think civ is a better game when you add the **** happens factor. Just my opinion of course.
Over the course of this discussion I think I now appreciate the other side of this argument a bit more due to the insightful responses from others.

If adding a random element I'd like to see more actual strategy applied to them. "you lost this tile improvement rebuild it" isn't strategy; it's tedium. Forge burning and such are similar too; the cost in gold is so comparably cheap that you'd virtually always want to rebuild a burned building if you were willing to invest in it in the first place (IE not much strategy when you "if this" and can instantly conclude "do that" and be right consistently). As binary research is generally optimal anyway, you'll always have the money if you're not being lazy also.

Quests are a valid element. So are events that happen under more consistently discernible circumstances and can be planned to avoid, get, or compensate for. This is a strategy game, but like vassal states, AP, and most other expansion features events is largely a thrown-together package that could have made gameplay SO much more dynamic than they currently do. They'd still be bad in HoF because of "replay = skill" factor and in XOTM, but they'd be a lot more fun and more competitively valid as opponents might even seek to intercept good ones/cause risks of bad ones.

But nope. Most of these "fun" events are just something happening that you
1) have minimal-to-no control over (random doesn't mean it has to preclude strategy!)
2) are largely minor and only affect timings by a turn or two, and if you're ahead by more than that wind up being non-factors or
3) potentially game-breakingly good (free golden ages, massed march) or terrible (bermuda triangle, vedic aryans)...and even these are frequently unprepared random draws.

This is why I temper excitement over the civ V expansion; I still remember that YOU having a vassal can actually make your opponent think HE is doing better in the war than if you didn't have that vassal...even if the vassal has killed more of its units than it lost.

The same company that made choices like that to put into the game is giving us an expansion in a game that still doesn't work...and that fact escapes a large portion of the community .

 

[rah]

The same company that made choices like that to put into the game is giving us an expansion in a game that still doesn't work...and that fact escapes a large portion of the community .

100% agree

While I think you paint the events as a bit too dark which I still disagree with, I respect your opinion.

Actually I thought the slave revolt event (which many consider game breaking) was a good one.
Slaving is such a STRONG civic that I believe it should carry a risk to use, and I think the slave revolt is a good possible penalty to offset it's use.

 

[Sojuz]

"A game that still doesn't work". Say that to my awesome Europe scenario games and tens of hours spent playing and enjoying it. I'd love to see a poll destoying your flawed idea that Civ4 is unfinished and broke, yes because the flawed thing here is not really the game, as i stated before, perfection is perfection, human is human, you'll never get anything perfect about videogames, pros and cons are everywhere, what changes valor of videogames is the ratio about pros/cons.

 

[Mylene]

Leaving the silly ones aside, i dislike random events cos not much thinking is involved.
Besides, you often would get punished for playing better (if no event happens). Keeping gold in your treasury is inefficent if spending all gives you techs quicker, but if you dun have gold you cannot pay for silly event X...