Complaints about random events

Discussion in 'Civ4 - General Discussions' started by civfanchambers, Mar 1, 2014.

  1. civfanchambers

    civfanchambers Prince

    Joined:
    Dec 18, 2013
    Messages:
    456
    Location:
    Houston Texas
    Within several threads I have read players complaints over random events. Players say they are not well thought out, or poorly implemented. I will not argue that random events can seem a little lame, but they were probably meant to be flavor to spice up the game. If random events were more developed or intricate it could risk one of two things. Making the game feel like a RPG, or mini-scenario. The game designers working on Bts probably felt that way. If you want a scenario play one. The core of the game is about strategies, not Rpging. Now I'm not saying more developed random events would be a bad thing, I would love to see more complex events. A perfect example - in the era of the Roman empire the Mediterranean sea was called a Roman lake. After the empire was divided the Eastern empire, what modern people call Byzantine sought to reclaim the Mediterranean as a Roman lake. I would love a complex random event where the citizens of my nation want complete control over a sea bordering my empire. Requiring me to expand peacefully or to war to claim a nearby sea. Numerous such examples could be given about possible random events. Could the designers have put more effort into events? Certainly, but we must accept we they gave us, mod the game, or turn random events off.
     
  2. Manco Capac

    Manco Capac Friday,13 June,I Collapse

    Joined:
    Mar 1, 2010
    Messages:
    8,051
    Originally, the random events were severely complained because of several ones with tremendous results like "Aryan Archers" or "Tower Shield" ones. It was so much game changing it was ridiculous. Nonetheless, if playing an enhanced version of the game, it should be ridden by now.
    Also, there is the problem of "passivity" with random events. Basically, you get something and either be joyful or "suck it up". That is why "quests" are the most appreciated because you have choice to embark into it or leave it alone and not just passively being aggressed by the event. Same for classical random events leaving choices...they are more appreciated than one result events.

    Slave revolts are also one even that can destroy a whole strategy by either making you miss a tight race for a wonder or striking so much at the worst moment being rushed. It happened to me while rushing someone and it definitely crushed the AI.

    At last, there is the "sheep effect" behind it. Some "thinkers" of the past advocating for games with least RNG to compare games to each others agreed to get rid of both tribal huts and random events for being completely random and too much game devianting. And they got so much succesful in their campaigns that the community of regular posters tacitly agreed to this. But in the end, there is nothing wrong playing with those, especially done in solo games.
     
  3. capnvonbaron

    capnvonbaron Democratia gladii

    Joined:
    Aug 15, 2008
    Messages:
    1,783
    Location:
    cyberland, USA
    Well the nice thing about a history based game it that it doesn't HAVE to be all about strategy... some players want to play it for RPG reasons. In that effect, random events can be fun. I usually play with them on because more than often if I get a bad enough random event that I quit, I probably wasn't doing well anyways. However, a good random event will make me want to continue if the game is getting stale. Its all personal preference.
     
  4. Timsup2nothin

    Timsup2nothin Deity

    Joined:
    Apr 2, 2013
    Messages:
    46,737
    Personally, I think events are pretty well done...here's my reasoning:

    There are lots of complaints about 'overpowered' events that can 'ruin your strategy'. Most commonly the 'slave revolt' that can indeed occur at the worst possible moment, but only if you are running the most overpowered civic in the game...or the 'barbarian uprising' that can ruin your strategy if you are only investing in 'optimum' defenses in the early game so as to get a good jump start on the AIs. There are ways to keep any event from 'breaking' your game...but to avoid the once in a blue moon catastrophe you have to play 'sub-optimally' every time just in case...that's balancing, not breaking.

    Then there are a lot of complaints about 'meaningless' events that just don't do enough harm to really have an effect. These offset the other complaints. If people are saying they are underpowered, and other people are saying they are over-powered (or even more amusing, the same person saying both at various times), it seems likely that they are somewhere in the middle...in other words 'right'.
     
  5. Ambidexter

    Ambidexter Edjumacated Idjit

    Joined:
    May 22, 2007
    Messages:
    388
    Location:
    Connecticut
    Random events happen in real life. The Mongol invasions of Japan in 1274 and 1281 were ended by the famous kamikaze, typhoons which destroyed the Mongol fleets.
     
  6. Manco Capac

    Manco Capac Friday,13 June,I Collapse

    Joined:
    Mar 1, 2010
    Messages:
    8,051
    TMIT sure will love ya. ;)
     
  7. fed1943

    fed1943 Emperor

    Joined:
    Nov 28, 2005
    Messages:
    1,185
    Location:
    Lisbon
    Nothing wrong with random events, as they can be disabled (I always do it).
     
  8. Rusty Edge

    Rusty Edge Deity

    Joined:
    Jan 17, 2007
    Messages:
    2,895
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Cheeseland
    I've come out in favor of random events here plenty of times.

    Today I'll share a piece of a book I read last night.

    The destroyer captain was dissatisfied with his ship's slow and inaccurate gunnery. So he canceled all shore leave until the radar fire control was re-calibrated, and the fire control "computer" was also checked.

    The ships company complained about the unfairness of having leave cancelled just before they shipped out .

    He responded with "Do you think the Japanese will treat you fairly? Do you think they will withhold fire because you're not ready to fight?"
    ************************************
    When Hannibal sees that the Romans are too crowded to fight properly, or Napoleon sees that the Coalition is divided, do you think they give them time to re-group and fight on a fair footing?

    Do the Russians say "let's suspend hostilities on account of winter"?
    Did the Europeans think it was unfair to take advantage of disease, horses, steel, or gunpowder when conquering the new world?
     
  9. CaterpillarKing

    CaterpillarKing Conqueror of Cacoons

    Joined:
    Feb 11, 2014
    Messages:
    6,312
    Location:
    On a leaf
    My main problem is that there aren't enough events that are game changing, not necessarily breaking though. Like for example, a spy is captured in your land. Do you detain him for information but risk war? Or do you release him? I want that. Stuff like that.
     
  10. gps

    gps King

    Joined:
    Oct 6, 2007
    Messages:
    885
    Well, Sid Meier stated in many interviews that the philosophy behind his games was to put the player in the place of a fighter pilot, a submarine captain, a boss of a railroad company, a pirate captain - or in case of Civ the leader of a nation through 6000 years of human history. So I am not totally sure your statement is correct from the perspective of the inventor of Civ himself. And he's the one who really should know what his game is about, shouldn't he?
    I vividly recall losing many a Civ I game within the first handfull of turns due to massive barbarian uprisings popped from a hut. So cruel random punishments or massive benefits have been part of the game series from the very beginning. Although I can understand people don't like them in MP games, I think it totally makes sense to have them as an option for single player games. The ability to deal with unforseen events sure tells us something about the quality of a great leader. The problem with how their are implemented in BTS are:
    A) Most are just minor issues that don't really make a difference. So it's often just a waste of time.
    B) Quests usually are kind of pointless and not really worth the effort.
    C) The game - if I got things right - makes a pre-selection of possible events and then uses only those throughout the course of one game. So either there are no slave revolts at all, or you (and all the other players) get them kind of constantly.
     
  11. Kallikrates

    Kallikrates Prince

    Joined:
    May 30, 2012
    Messages:
    480
    Location:
    VRBS ANSEATICA
    As I have probably played BtS not as long as the earlier versions, my experience with events is limited.
    I agree that most of them are just too trivial to bother. Get one extra trade in some jungle tile? Who cares? Have to rebuild some things after fire or hurricane, sure sucks, but unless playing "on the edge", most of the time it will not really ruin your game.

    Others are unbalancing and free: get cover promo for all your axes etc. could be decisive
    Most of the quests I encountered were just not worthwhile. I hardly ever build a coliseum, unless Pacal. Why would I bother to do "Sports league" instead of a war/wonder etc.?

    The only quest I got twice and completed successfully was the "classical literature" But both times I played a CRE leader, so libraries were cheap and I had probably already built three when I received the quest. And both times I got the Great Library, which gives you the only reward really worth bothering, an additional free scientist. For one or two cheap old techs or 2 beakers for A SINGLE library it would be ridiculous.

    And historically, there should be many more slave revolts... the prob is tiny.
     
  12. sinimusta

    sinimusta el capitano

    Joined:
    Mar 27, 2013
    Messages:
    1,077
    Location:
    Finland
    Sometimes they're cool and go along with your plans. Once I was playing napoleon going for cuirs and got a mission to get some musketeers. And what was the reward? A golden age! So only thing I had to do was to build army and I get a massive boost to my empire at the same time.
     
  13. Patricko

    Patricko Warlord

    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2012
    Messages:
    109
    Location:
    Norwich
    Yep, that sums it up for me.
     
  14. ZeekLTK

    ZeekLTK Warlord

    Joined:
    Oct 6, 2002
    Messages:
    260
    I like the idea of quests, but I hardly ever get them and when I do, they don't make sense.

    The latest one I got was playing as Babylonia on the World Map. Quest wanted me to build a bunch of harbors and boats, but I only had ONE coastal city. Couldn't have done it even if I wanted to. lol


    Because slaves should care about how their actions might affect your strategy... :lol:
     
  15. Manco Capac

    Manco Capac Friday,13 June,I Collapse

    Joined:
    Mar 1, 2010
    Messages:
    8,051
    I play a game. With Random Events. I just discovered Archery. I sure need to build two of these just in case I get Aryan Archer events. Boom, two turns after Archery discovery, Aryan Archers event. Well, sucker! I should have pumped more warriors from T0.
     
  16. Lennier

    Lennier Emperor

    Joined:
    Mar 10, 2013
    Messages:
    1,366
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Orange County, NY
    Hmmm...nice story about the need for military training (in Civ IV terms, building drydocks), but Tokugawa declaring on you isn't really a random event. OTOH, all your military prep (XP on your destroyer) won't save it from the "Bermuda Triangle" event.
    Again, matters of strategies and tactics for you or your opponents to use, but nothing to do with Civ IV random events. But your game just became much easier if, by no planning on your account, you get the random event that gives free cover to all of your melee.

    Last time I checked, Russian winters happen regularly, not randomly.
    Yes, in Civ IV it's wise to get a military tech advantage and exploit it by conquering backward civs. But what's it got to do with the goodness of random events?
     
  17. elmurcis

    elmurcis Emperor

    Joined:
    Feb 16, 2011
    Messages:
    1,140
    Location:
    Latvia
    I got both naval quests last game.. Nice economy boost when get harbors +2 commerce and +1 gold :D (if remember that you have 18 harbors already done on Huge to complete quest, its almost +10% research rate at that moment)
    And these ships helped to destroy enemy fleet.. so.. 2x great :)
     
  18. rah

    rah Deity Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 12, 2005
    Messages:
    10,119
    Location:
    Chicago
    My favorite was playing on a Pangaea map and getting the must settle 13 land masses quest. There was one large land mass and 3 small Islands.

    And as much as slave revolts take abuse around here, anything that makes slavery not so OP is welcome in my book. There should be a price to pay for staying in slavery.
     
  19. DigitalBoy

    DigitalBoy Emperor

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2006
    Messages:
    1,346
    I used to be something of a purist in that I always started games with the Play Now! menu option, because I wanted to play with the "default" settings. Random events single-handedly convinced me to start playing custom games, just so I could disable them. They have way too much influence on the game for something that can't really be anticipated or controlled.

    The barbarian uprising events in particular are complete bull ****. The archer event is ironically the most dangerous for how early it can occur, but I've also had horse archer uprisings happen as early as 1500BC.

    So slavery is too powerful, and the balance solution to that is to randomly and arbitrarily punish you for running it, but it's still basically the best labor civic until Emancipation. That's a weird concept of balance.

    As for barbarian uprisings, I'll refer you to post #15.
     
  20. Timsup2nothin

    Timsup2nothin Deity

    Joined:
    Apr 2, 2013
    Messages:
    46,737
    Even with the 'flaw' that the slaves might rebel it's the best labor civic...so let's turn off the flaw and make it even more overpowered.

    In post #15 the poster actually says 'shoulda coulda woulda pumped out some warriors'. But of course pumping out some warriors isn't 'optimal play' so no one can 'afford' to do it...because we all want to get that big jump on the AI so we can win the game halfway through and talk about how it isn't really challenging. Of course in that case pumping some warriors would have been the optimal play since not doing it meant losing.
     

Share This Page