Black Swans & randomness: what Civ VII could've been

[dagriggstar]

Honestly the best "black swan" is the one that is subtly coded into the game. In civ VI terms a city that hits its housing cap starts becoming more susceptible to being the origin point of a plague. A player has a valuable resource so their civilization becomes the center of world trade, that resource runs out, all the trade routes to that player are now worth substantially less gold per turn, that causes multiple economies to crash etc etc.

Not random in the sense that a player can play a certain way to avoid triggering them. But random in the once certain conditions are met there is x chance per turn of the event firing.

I would say it'd be a soft anti-snowball mechanic, if we assume everyone gets hit then the faction with the most to lose, loses the most.

 

[timmychompchomp]

Black Swan hardly needs promotion on a niche community website: "The book has been described by The Sunday Times as one of the twelve most influential books since World War II. As of December 2020, it has been cited approximately 10,633 times, 9,000 of which are for the English-language edition. The book spent 36 weeks on the New York Times Best Seller List;17 as hardcover and 19 weeks as paperback. It was published in 32 languages."

Read it or not, I couldn't care less (based that post, it would be eye-opening for you). The point is the subject matter could have been incorporated into the game as a different way to solve a problem.

If you want to actually scrutinize a "buzzword" feel free. As for the concept, return to the quote above for different perspectives on its merit and reflect on who might be making excuses / in denial. In other words, Taleb's argument hasn't exactly fallen apart.


On the first part, I suppose it depends on whether snowballing/inevitability is a problem. There are valid arguments either way.

Interesting point about removing mechanics, that might be the idea. Seems like the same outcome would've been possible in a more of a continuum, but that likely is a lot more difficult to code.

I’m way too dumb to understand such a complex and insightful topic. I wear glasses, so you’re right, it would probably be eye opening.

Marx wrote an incredibly influential pamphlet, paraded around as important and revolutionary, but boils down to “people want what others have” or “gimmie that.” Hasn’t worked out well either for all its ideals and values. It’s cope for the masses in the face of reality.

My reference to buzzwords was directed at you, not the author. You don’t like civ switching, ages, or crises. Black Swan is just a vehicle for you to criticize the game. It’s all under the guise of, let’s have a discussion about some theory that opened my eyes, but actually pollutes the board with the 700th, I am smarter than the devs thread. I am glad the black swan helps you deal with whatever it is you were having a hard time dealing with or understanding.

 

[I was NC]

My reference to buzzwords was directed at you, not the author. You don’t like civ switching, ages, or crises. Black Swan is just a vehicle for you to criticize the game. It’s all under the guise of, let’s have a discussion about some theory that opened my eyes, but actually pollutes the board with the 700th, I am smarter than the devs thread. I am glad the black swan helps you deal with whatever it is you were having a hard time dealing with or understanding.

Yes, I understood you were referring to me. I'd still be interested to know how my statements "fall apart"?

As for yours, I do not think and never did claim to be smarter than the devs. Several of my comments very clearly suggest otherwise. For all I know you're also much smarter than me.

No I don't like switching, that also was clear (not some "ah ha, gotcha" moment). My dislike grew upon realizing what could have been. Thus the thread. You've essentially described the point.

As for it being pollution, perhaps you don't realize it's optional to read these, let alone reply? Also, I'm hardly alone in wishing aspects of the game were different. Since that perspective seems to bother you, I'd suggest looking at less.

 

[moondog385]

I think it’s a bit premature to discuss what the game “could’ve been.” No one here has even played the game yet.

 

[GeoGeo]

There would have to be some sort of mechanistic system to justify the random aspects. For instance, gamers seem to be more accepting of random events when they're tied to a concrete cause, even an arbitrary one like a dice roll. Maybe something like an onscreen "disaster meter" that fills in the course of gameplay. When it maxes out, the empire or city gets hit with a natural disaster/plague/forced policy changes/revolutions/whatever. And hopefully a powerful empire that's snowballing would encounter disasters more frequently than one that's already struggling.

In any case, the fact that players accumulate game knowledge in and out of gameplay makes implementing true black swan events a daunting design challenge. Nothing is fully unexpected when the game is datamined and everyone can know the odds.

 

[timmychompchomp]

Yes, I understood you were referring to me. I'd still be interested to know how my statements "fall apart"?

As for yours, I do not think and never did claim to be smarter than the devs. Several of my comments very clearly suggest otherwise. For all I know you're also much smarter than me.

No I don't like switching, that also was clear (not some "ah ha, gotcha" moment). My dislike grew upon realizing what could have been. Thus the thread. You've essentially described the point.

As for it being pollution, perhaps you don't realize it's optional to read these, let alone reply? Also, I'm hardly alone in wishing aspects of the game were different. Since that perspective seems to bother you, I'd suggest looking at less.

The reason for my reply is this: you haven’t played it, have seen little, but dislike it because of what might have been. This phenomenon is probably a green swan. This is all about you thinking you know better. With zero experience and limited knowledge you label their decisions as unnecessary, artificial, and ahistorical. It is pollution because the author, you and many others, don’t realize it’s optional to create these ignorant threads about a game you haven’t played and know little about. It’s totally fine to say you don’t like what you’re seeing and discuss what has been revealed, but it’s a whole different thing when we start forecasting, passing judgment, using dismissive language, and fixing the unknown, without experience. I reject the notion that we know enough about the crisis mechanic to definitively judge it and propose how to fix it. Why should I not reply to something this absurd. Maybe I am just an old man who doesn’t understand game forums. I find this forum devolving into a personal diary of the disgruntled and entitled. I do ignore many posts, but some rise to a level of ignorance and smugness that I have to respond. I want to know what makes a person like this tick.

 

[Zaarin]

Moderator Action: Please keep the discussion civil and about the topic, not about other posters.

 

[Vitruvian Guar]

I think the correct approach towards preventing snowballing via crisis mechanics would be making crisis policies work differently based on the strength of the player.

So the strongest players would receive penalties, average players would get mixed bag - some penalties but also some bonuses akin to dark age policies from civ 6. And the weakest players would get straight bonuses, maybe even making them allied with the barbarians and allowing to take advantage of the troubles of stronger players and gaining an opportunity to catch up a bit.

This would shake things, changing the pace of the game, providing some asymmetrical gameplay during crisis. Balancing it the right way would of course be a challenge, but I think it's a worthy one.

 

[I was NC]

Anyway, sorry for the accidental essay, turns out I had rambling things I needed to get out that I didn't know about. I'll delete this post and move it into a new thread if you want.

No need to apologize at all, this is an even more thoughtful critique than I hoped to read (as opposed to what led to Moderator action). Gives lots to consider. Certainly seems to merit another thread, but I'll leave that up to you.

"Those are so different that proposing one but defending the merits of the other is rather confusing."
While my point was to bring up both, they are distinct. The connective aspect is trying to make the game "not Civ 6.5" by having it be sufficiently different. Where I might diverge is seeing less like the coin flip analogy and more of a continuum.

"you can't plausibly work them into a broader plan that takes there possibility into account. That's why they're a pretty bad idea as a game mechanic."
To an extent that depends on implementation and preferences. The example on this thread of a meteor wiping out a capital right before winning a science victory is clearly bad. By contrast, the internet happening could lead to fun and interesting outcomes.

"there's pretty strong agreement that you want the disparity between players in a strategy game to grow as a reward for making good decisions"
I understood *knowing Player X is inevitably going to win by mid-game* to be a critique of the game, a problem to be solved. As in the first of your very impressive graphs is the best case. You may be right about how the Crisis system will work, and if so it should be an at least partial response. The depiction is basically what I had in mind for Black Swans, just not at pre-determined points in time.

Again, very much appreciate the insightfulness, I learned something.

 

[Nikolai II]

The different crises in Stellaris are entertaining. And somewhat random.

Stellaris is one of my favorite games ever, and the crises was one feature I turned off pretty quickly. It was unfun and disruptive of my enjoyment of the game.

 

[I was NC]

Honestly, the only argument I can think for having random black swan crises over the synchronised end-of-era ones is that it's closer to how history works. Well, maybe. But there's a huge gap from than being true to it being good game design.

I might be able to quibble with a few aspects of this (longer) reply, but fundamentally you're right. While I'm still unconvinced about the overall design/structure of VII, the Black Swan concept is not necessarily better. Might be worse.

Smaller aspects of randomness for basic game mechanics still could be a substantial improvement.

 

[Krikkit1]

I think the correct approach towards preventing snowballing via crisis mechanics would be making crisis policies work differently based on the strength of the player.

So the strongest players would receive penalties, average players would get mixed bag - some penalties but also some bonuses akin to dark age policies from civ 6. And the weakest players would get straight bonuses, maybe even making them allied with the barbarians and allowing to take advantage of the troubles of stronger players and gaining an opportunity to catch up a bit.

This would shake things, changing the pace of the game, providing some asymmetrical gameplay during crisis. Balancing it the right way would of course be a challenge, but I think it's a worthy one.

I think it is simpler than that, the crisis can simply “target” strnger players more.

The barbarians target the big rich cities

The plague travels rapidly to the cities with lots of population, imported resources, towns feeding them, and trade routes

The rebel forces are strongest in the richest empires (they aren’t sharing enough of that wealth with us)

etc.

 

[King of Prussia]

My view of random events or just RNG in strategy games is this. Random events can help make each play through unique. Ideally these are balanced so they dont make or break a run. I quite like say EU4s system of different player actions can make events more or less likely. This gives you some control over them, and possibly even plan around them.

RNG is also fine, if it has a limit on its min and max. Doing 75-85 damage to a unit is something you can fairly reliable plan around. We all know how reliable 99% shots are in xcom. Warhammer Chaos gate interestingly made hits guaranteed(xcom style game), but moved the RNG elsewhere.


We will see if the age/crisis system does a good job keeping people from getting out too far ahead, and help those behind catch back up.

 

[Vitruvian Guar]

I think it is simpler than that, the crisis can simply “target” strnger players more.

The barbarians target the big rich cities

The plague travels rapidly to the cities with lots of population, imported resources, towns feeding them, and trade routes

The rebel forces are strongest in the richest empires (they aren’t sharing enough of that wealth with us)

etc.

I agree, that crisis targeting the strongest player should be a thing. But I don't think that can be achieved without assymetry in crisis policies.

Suppose a huge barbarian army is going for the strongest player A and a weaker player B is on the way. Naturally they will just curbstomp B, reduce their initial force and then A will have easier time dealing with them. Even though the crisis targets A, B suffers the most.

But suppose that B has an access to a crisis policy which makes barbarians neutral, untill attacked, for some amount of gold per turn. Then they can simply allow the army to pass through their territory and maybe even attack A with their help. In this situation, the crisis is actually more challenging for the strongest player, while presenting an opportunity for weaker ones.

The same policy, of course, shouldn't be allowed for the strongest players who are the primary targets of the crisis.

 

[Krikkit1]

I agree, that crisis targeting the strongest player should be a thing. But I don't think that can be achieved without assymetry in crisis policies.

Suppose a huge barbarian army is going for the strongest player A and a weaker player B is on the way. Naturally they will just curbstomp B, reduce their initial force and then A will have easier time dealing with them. Even though the crisis targets A, B suffers the most.

But suppose that B has an access to a crisis policy which makes barbarians neutral, untill attacked, for some amount of gold per turn. Then they can simply allow the army to pass through their territory and maybe even attack A with their help. In this situation, the crisis is actually more challenging for the strongest player, while presenting an opportunity for weaker ones.

The same policy, of course, shouldn't be allowed for the strongest players who are the primary targets of the crisis.

That depends on if the barbs have to go through the weaker players to get to the stronger one and don’t just appear in greater numbers next to the stronger player.

 

[Krajzen]

I completely disagree with the criticism of random events as a fan of Paradox games (especially Europa Universalis, to a lesser degree Crusader Kings) - random events are simply fun for many people, even when they sometimes explode in your face, to the point playerbase always welcomes more of them (even more disastrous ones) and several games (imperator rome, victoria III) have been harshly criticized for not enough random events. And they have been quite popular in legendary Civilization IV, in Sid Meier's Alpha Centauri, in many other 4X games, in XCOM etc. I have felt joy beyond measure once I learned they come back to Civ series. Of course I understand different tastes and how many people may dislike them for their unpredictability, but I am on the opposite end of this scale.

Random events in strategy games of this scale are
1) Fun for many people precisely because they are unexpected hence exciting and they really help with the games feeling more like chaotic, organic world systems that you can't optimize perfectly, rather than board games or spreadsheets of exponential growth where you can "optimize the fun out of the game" to quote Gabe Newell iirc and the problem I repeatedly had with many games. Or the cardboard feel of civ6.
2) They definitely help a bit with the difficulty level and endgame problems of many games - Crusader Kings II was fantastic in its adrenaline-inducing dramatic adventures instead of many strategy games predictable algorithm of optimizable growth rate.
3) Flavourful and immersive- they are a way to introduce to the game references to the layers of your civilization which can't be displayed via the regular mechanics. The counterargument that "you read them once and then click through them anyway" is dumb because I prefer to at least have them for X games before I get bored of them rather not to have them at all. Besides, that counterargument doesn't seem to be aware that many games with random events feature hundres if not thousands of them (they require relatively little effort to be made in mass numbers) and after like 15 or 20 campaigns in EU4 I have seen tiny minority of them all.
4) To put it simply, make the game feel more real - not just historical games, just games in general. In real life both on everyday level and on political, historical, social, economic level - one constantly has to deal with the unexpected or even outside-context problems and challenges. This is one of the reason civ6 felt largely artificial and unappealing for me: everything here is predictable and optimizable (besides those few natural disasters). I rarely felt any strong emotions in civ6 because I know nothing can grab me by my throat either from the inside or the outside of my civilization (cough cough terrible AI and civ6 1UPt system cough cough).

Now, of course random events which just hit you in the face with devastating effects and no ability to counteract are certainly not fun; you can't have games ruined with no player's input. But Stellaris game has proven that you may throw at the players random unexpected challenges of enormous, game-changing scale and players may end up loving them and demand more of them - as long as they are the doors opening exciting opportunities and dramatic stories to unfold before players, not frustrating arbitrary losses. On the extreme end of this scale are games like Dwarf Fortress or Rimworld, where interesting disasters are in themselves source of fun.

Of course Civilization series have a different, more relaxing and casual vibe that the aforementioned games, so I don't expect them to throw in my face real history equivalent of aforementioned sci/fi colossal crises "oh well now giant death machines emerge, we fight them or we die" (though honestly personally I would totally play hardcore "survival" historical game like that, when you totally deal with random stuff like precolombian epidemics). But to sum up, I am so damn happy random events are back, and a little masochist inside me cackles with joy at the thought of being hit with some sudden political drama in the worst possible moment. Oh the sweet heartbeat of terror, and then sweet heartbeat of relief (or not).

 

[I was NC]

Random events in strategy games of this scale are
1) Fun for many people precisely because they are unexpected hence exciting and they really help with the games feeling more like chaotic, organic world systems that you can't optimize perfectly, rather than board games or spreadsheets of exponential growth where you can "optimize the fun out of the game" to quote Gabe Newell iirc and the problem I repeatedly had with many games. Or the cardboard feel of civ6.
2) They definitely help a bit with the difficulty level and endgame problems of many games - Crusader Kings II was fantastic in its adrenaline-inducing dramatic adventures instead of many strategy games predictable algorithm of optimizable growth rate.
3) Flavourful and immersive- they are a way to introduce to the game references to the layers of your civilization which can't be displayed via the regular mechanics. The counterargument that "you read them once and then click through them anyway" is dumb because I prefer to at least have them for X games before I get bored of them rather not to have them at all. Besides, that counterargument doesn't seem to be aware that many games with random events feature hundres if not thousands of them (they require relatively little effort to be made in mass numbers) and after like 15 or 20 campaigns in EU4 I have seen tiny minority of them all.
4) To put it simply, make the game feel more real - not just historical games, just games in general. In real life both on everyday level and on political, historical, social, economic level - one constantly has to deal with the unexpected or even outside-context problems and challenges. This is one of the reason civ6 felt largely artificial and unappealing for me: everything here is predictable and optimizable (besides those few natural disasters). I rarely felt any strong emotions in civ6 because I know nothing can grab me by my throat either from the inside or the outside of my civilization (cough cough terrible AI and civ6 1UPt system cough cough).

You make an excellent case for these concepts, thank you!

 

[Vitruvian Guar]

That depends on if the barbs have to go through the weaker players to get to the stronger one and don’t just appear in greater numbers next to the stronger player.

Yep. But the latter case is rather gamey, and basically removes the distinction between barbarians and rebels.

I think it's much more interesting when barbarians go through map and players can react to them differently and adjust their playstyles accordingly. And the crisis policy system is very fitting for this kind of things. Though, I'd prefer them to work more like narrative events that pop out from time to time during the crisis.

 

[Krikkit1]

Yep. But the latter case is rather gamey, and basically removes the distinction between barbarians and rebels.

I think it's much more interesting when barbarians go through map and players can react to them differently and adjust their playstyles accordingly. And the crisis policy system is very fitting for this kind of things. Though, I'd prefer them to work more like narrative events that pop out from time to time during the crisis.

We saw the barbarians coming up from any empty land in the Antiquity crisis. Because otherwise the layout of the empires is Way too big of an effect on who gets hit.

 

[Trav'ling Canuck]

I completely disagree with the criticism of random events as a fan of Paradox games (especially Europa Universalis, to a lesser degree Crusader Kings) - random events are simply fun for many people

A key difference, though, is that Civ has victory conditions, while Paradox does not. Sure, lots of people play Civ without trying to win, but lots of other people do strive for victory. And a random event that tips a possible win into a loss can be very frustrating, while random events that aren't impactful enough to affect your chance at victory can feel like time-wasting nuisances. This can be balanced by giving players a large number of modest impact random events, but even that is only likely to even out over multiple games unless game play is halted every few turns for events that takes the player's focus off of what they're trying to do.

Even on Paradox forums, you'll see a lot of complaints about certain events being too harsh, or or too common, or too infrequent, or a waste of time because they do so little. Events can be a nightmare to tune to meet expectations, even if you narrow your focus to try and have them appeal to the role-players who set their own objectives.