Do people like good huts?

[TheMeInTeam]

Civ4, by the end, did have random events which I LOVED (but some did not). They ranged from dynastic marriages that gave diplo modifiers, to timed build quests, similar to the current emergencies system. It was flavor, granted, but they added something different to each game and were immersive.

As for goodie huts, I wish they would re-introduce barb spawn to possible goodie hut outcomes. It would shake things up a bit, and make players more cautious about fielding too many lone scouts in the remote wilderness...

The reason they're not so popular with players who put emphasis on strategy is that they were degenerate in terms of strategy implementation.

Deleting 10,000 of units instantly is not something a competent designer concludes is okay. It has the potential to trivialize what would have otherwise been hundreds of meaningful choices made to that point...player decisions that, in the absence of the event, mattered.

Rather than "immersive" I'll counter-claim that this type of implementation is one of the most straight up immersion-breaking things a dev can put in a game. "Here, what you did until now is arbitrarily meaningless". No thanks.

One of my few quibbles with the Civ 6 artwork - which I generally love - is that goody huts are so bland. Which is odd given the generally colourful art style overall.

Not just bland, they don't visually stand out on the map much which is odd and a little annoying. Not a big deal, but still.

 

[NoonePerson]

The reason they're not so popular with players who put emphasis on strategy is that they were degenerate in terms of strategy implementation.

Deleting 10,000 of units instantly is not something a competent designer concludes is okay. It has the potential to trivialize what would have otherwise been hundreds of meaningful choices made to that point...player decisions that, in the absence of the event, mattered.

Rather than "immersive" I'll counter-claim that this type of implementation is one of the most straight up immersion-breaking things a dev can put in a game. "Here, what you did until now is arbitrarily meaningless". No thanks.

Do you think that the following implementations of random events would be beneficial to play?

• Exclude all events (whether persistent from turn 1 or triggered by milestones) that are effectively one outcome that remove a player asset randomly.
• All events should have beneficial effects with multiple choices.
• A select number of events should have 'prerequisite' player assets for better benefits.

And most importantly:

• Random events are off by default and can be toggled before game start.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

• Exclude all events (whether persistent from turn 1 or triggered by milestones) that are effectively one outcome that remove a player asset randomly.

• All events should have beneficial effects with multiple choices.

• A select number of events should have 'prerequisite' player assets for better benefits.

You don't even need them to all be beneficial. The most important thing to include with RNG events is agency - consequences for being prepared, not prepared, and that events fire consistently with the situation on the game board.

Compare civ 4 stuff like "lol ur 4rg3 got r3kt", bermuda nuclear triangle, or vedic aryans to some games that live on RNG like FTL.

This is also why civ 4 barbs are one of the systems that 5 and 6 actually improved on rather than regressed - aside from the first 5-10 turns in civ 6 you're not going to get completely pasted by a couple bad rolls. A couple bad rolls to barbs in civ 4 could be literally game changing, even if you actually over-invested compared to the competition.

 

[Victoria]

All events should have beneficial effects with multiple choices.

Event: a volcano has just erupted next to your city, please choose the effect.

A. The lava misses your city but wipes out all enemy troops wishing your borders.
B. A new diamond mine is found in a new hill area, (choose location)
C. Develop a new tourist attraction surfing the lava, +5 tourism in this city
D. Ash fallout enriches the soil, +1 food for every tile within your borders.

To be more succinct, no.

 

[dunkleosteus]

It depends how the events system is used. I think the emergency system isn't that great. If you aren't already in a position to go to war, emergencies are relatively awful. I've had early emergencies spawn that I had no hope of getting to because of a mountain range and another war I was in. I could've easily taken the goal if I could've gotten over there.

If an events system is implemented, it should have different scales of event: small events should be the most common and global events should be incredibly rare; once or twice per game maximum. The way players can respond to an event also needs to be diverse. There needs to be multiple ways to handle events depending on your goals, resources, etc. Vox Populi did a great job of this in my opinion.

When events are talked about in Civ, the idea of disasters is often brought up. I think the general opinion on disasters is too favourable. People like the idea of a disaster for story purposes. They are the source of epic tales. The problem I see with disasters though is that Civ is not designed for disasters. The build times and production costs of buildings are designed so that you're almost never in a position where you don't have anything you could build. It can take an entire game to get your cities to have all the buildings and districts they need, when you have things like projects, units, etc. to handle as well.

In real life, tsunamis, earthquakes and fires have leveled Tokyo like 30 times because in real life, you can basically rebuild a city in a few decades. In Civ, losing 5+ (or even all) of the buildings in a city would set you back immensely. Unless something is changed, I think tile or building destruction should be ruled out.

 

[Trav'ling Canuck]

You should be able to trade natural disasters, just like in the original board game.

Sure, you're getting a pair of Salt which will give you the set you need to research Clothmaking, but maybe you should have wondered why Babylonia was so eager to get rid of a pair? Shoot. His third card was Volcano. There goes Pompei. Unless I can convince Egypt that I've changed my mind about sending her my Papyrus ...

I might be off topic.

 

[NoonePerson]

You should be able to trade natural disasters, just like in the original board game.

Sure, you're getting a pair of Salt which will give you the set you need to research Clothmaking, but maybe you should have wondered why Babylonia was so eager to get rid of a pair? Shoot. His third card was Volcano. There goes Pompei. Unless I can convince Egypt that I've changed my mind about sending her my Papyrus ...

I might be off topic.

I don't think you are. There's a lot to be learned from tabletop games that can be applied to turn based video games. Brevity being one of them

Event: a volcano has just erupted next to your city, please choose the effect. A. The lava misses your city but wipes out all enemy troops wishing your borders. B. A new diamond mine is found in a new hill area, (choose location) C. Develop a new tourist attraction surfing the lava, +5 tourism in this city D. Ash fallout enriches the soil, +1 food for every tile within your borders. To be more succinct, no.

Disagreed. I do not think there is anything inherently wrong with positive multiple choice events. An abundance of such a long with conditional triggers would make things interesting.

You don't even have to give all types of yields as a benefit for each one.

Since we are on the discussion of a hypothetical, I'd counter with the real alternative extreme. Civ IV had some horrendous events that were linear, including your proposed eruption event that destroyed tile improvements. This one could fire multiple times during the game.

Or worse yet, EUIII's comet sighted event which gives you three choices but one outcome for all, less stability.

Compare civ 4 stuff like "lol ur 4rg3 got r3kt", bermuda nuclear triangle, or vedic aryans to some games that live on RNG like FTL.

Vedic Aryans was possibly the worst devised random event I've ever seen in a game, due to its mean time to happen and the cheesiness of it (big 'ol stack o'archers at your first city, hope you beat the clock and somehow have slavery, archery and pop to prepare yourself for the early game handicapping). Completely pointless on any difficulty and just forced restarts. I remember a monarch game with that crap.

 

[acluewithout]

I can’t get excited about random events or natural disasters. I like the idea of unpredictable things happening because of agency (sort of what Emergencies were meant to do - but fail). I also like the idea of the environment changing over time, provided it’s in a semi-predictable way. But complete randomness isn’t appealing. You can’t really make strategic plans with randomness - stuff just happens, and either your plans are destroyed or they’re not.

 

[Victoria]

I'm with @acluewithout on this.
There is enough randomness in the game as it is
Also all events being positive in a game that's already easy to win on (skill vs level considered) is giving too much happiness, we need a bit of liver and onions to make the ice cream taste better.
Its also taken this way off topic and into the dark and silent room we call ideas & suggestions.

 

[NoonePerson]

I can’t get excited about random events or natural disasters. I like the idea of unpredictable things happening because of agency (sort of what Emergencies were meant to do - but fail). I also like the idea of the environment changing over time, provided it’s in a semi-predictable way. But complete randomness isn’t appealing. You can’t really make strategic plans with randomness - stuff just happens, and either your plans are destroyed or they’re not.

I haven't seen how the emergency mechanics work, but they don't sound like they add all that much.

What's the biggest issue with them? Is it their design or is it just some strange bugs and interactions?

 

[acluewithout]

I haven’t played R&F yet. I’m relying on what I read on these forums or see on the internet or see on let’s plays. My understanding is also that Emergencies don’t really add much to the game - if you’re a target, they’re easy to defend; AI rarely join them; they’re easy to avoid; stuff like that.

They sound like a great idea. Probably just need to be a few more flavours / triggers, and the AI needs to deal with them better.

 

[Victoria]

What's the biggest issue with them? Is it their design or is it just some strange bugs and interactions?

My understanding is also that Emergencies don’t really add much to the game

I guess the main thing is the large lump of gold you get out of it. Many 'emergencies' are rather easy to resolve and few other civs if any ever join so its often significant free cash.
Often an emergency will be only be taken yup by the defender AI which is in no state to deal with an emergency and so the aggressor gets moar free cash/whatever
There is no guarantee an emergency will happen so another random thing, the main issue is the Ghengis takes out a capital in a cluster of civs and no emergency happens but a religious CS on a frozen island gets taken and its a major deal.
If you have no visibility of the target but are eligible to join (each emergency has requirements like an envoy at a CS) then it does not show you that target.

My main premise is these cause a snowball of aggressor or you encouraging snowballing, originally there was some discussion that this was to speed up the end game but when the emergency happens on T27 its quite an OP win. One would rather have something that potentially punished the agressor rather than this random thing with a skewed outcome.

Eras? tick (but a bit long)
Governors? tick
Loyalty? tick (bar a couple of flipping issues)
Alliances? dash
emergencies? cross

 

[acluewithout]

I think having Emergencies reward the aggressor was a poor design decision.

From the first look videos way back, rewarding the aggressor seems to have been because of a concern about not having rubber band mechanics and or having the AI and player on the same level. I think that was a misstep.

Emergencies should just be a negative for the aggressor. If you’re an aggressor, the challenge should be to avoid triggering one or - if you’re going to - to make sure whatever you did was worth it (just like how warmonger penalties work now).

Turning back to good huts and barb encampments... Two things I struggle with.

First, I often struggle not warring in the early eras. I want to play more peacefully, so I can trade and have a diplomatic game - and frankly, so the AI is still around to challenge me in the mid and late game. But it’s so... boring. God it’s boring. I’d like someone else to fight with. Not a Civ. Not a city state. Barbs do scratch that itch a little. But there’s just no personality.

Second, I often end up colonising continents mid / late game (really just for fun). But either these distant lands are empty; or they’re populated by AI who are the same tech as me. I want to arrive with my caravels and actually find more primitive - and culturally distinct peoples. Maybe I’ll colonise like some ancient imperial power - or perhaps I’ll do something more enlightened...

I really wish goody-huts and barbs could just all get rolled together somehow. The game just seems to lack a ‘layer’ of diplomacy between AI Civs / City States and random barbs...

 

[Trav'ling Canuck]

we need a bit of liver and onions

I like liver and onions, especially with some mustard on the side. I never cook it at home, though. Stinks up the kitchen. It's exclusively a diner/pub order.

I'd also be in favour of random or semi-random events that shake you out of your current routine, even if only to the extent of deciding "do I want to respond to this or not?" The International Games in Civ 5 was an example of one of these (drop production on other things and focus on this or not?). Emergencies are intended to have a similar role in Civ 6, but I'm not sure they're well designed with the AI's capabilities in mind. Both, interestingly, are semi-random, in that they are triggered by in game actions, but don't always occur.

Whether the events are dealing with possible negative effects or going after possible positive effects isn't important if they are designed such that the AI is as capable as the human of evaluating them and responding effectively. Adding any new feature that tilts the difficulty level in favour of the human should be delayed, in my opinion, until the overall challenge level of the game at Immortal/Deity has been increased.

I think having Emergencies reward the aggressor was a poor design decision.

From the first look videos way back, rewarding the aggressor seems to have been because of a concern about not having rubber band mechanics and or having the AI and player on the same level. I think that was a misstep.

Emergencies should just be a negative for the aggressor. If you’re an aggressor, the challenge should be to avoid triggering one or - if you’re going to - to make sure whatever you did was worth it (just like how warmonger penalties work now).

I understand your thinking here, but on reflection, I think Emergencies are more interesting because they could work out in favour of either side. It's the ineffectiveness of the AI in wisely choosing and then pursuing the achievement of the Emergency objective that makes them a win-win for the aggressor.

And even that can be justified as a way to speed up the end game, but that's a mostly commentary on the length of time and number of mouse clicks currently required to go from "the game is won" to "there's the victory screen".

 

[acluewithout]

Yeah, I’ve sort of never really understood this ‘speeding up the end game’ goal.

I mean: I get wanting to speed up the end game because the end game is boring... but wouldn’t it actually be better to make the end game more fun?

I try very hard to play efficiently, albeit within a lot of constraints (eg no overflow; a max number of cities; 8 ages of pace mod). I use turn times as a bit of a gauge to work out how efficiently I’m playing. But I don’t actually want the game to be over quickly... I want to have some time in my little world, and have stuff happen. I’m not chasing turn times.

 

[Lee Duane Fitzsimmons]

Goody huts with goodies....



Goody huts with barbs.....



This is your brain on goodie huts...



Any questions?

 

[Victoria]

Any questions?

Why is goody huts with barbs flogging a dead horse? That’s more era points and XP?

 

[Draco84]

Maybe I'm just old, but in the original civ I found goody huts a lot more exciting.

How many times I would send my initial warrior to a hut a few tiles away and spawn 9 barbs, oh crap!

Barbs were pretty fun in the original too, you could watch their ships arrive and then they drop diplomats and troops on your beaches.

Bring up another point. I miss diplomats from the original.

 

[acluewithout]

It looks like the next expansion will tackle diplomacy, ideology and introduce a world congress.

I’m hoping we get diplomats and that spies and envoys all get an overhaul as part of that next expansion (along with making loyalty more involved, allowing vassals and regional alliances, and maybe expanding free cities and city states a little).

I like the spy system and the envoy system, but I think these could be integrated / combined a little and then expanded just a touch.

 

[agonistes]

It looks like the next expansion will tackle diplomacy, ideology and introduce a world congress.

I’m hoping we get diplomats and that spies and envoys all get an overhaul as part of that next expansion (along with making loyalty more involved, allowing vassals and regional alliances, and maybe expanding free cities and city states a little).

I like the spy system and the envoy system, but I think these could be integrated / combined a little and then expanded just a touch.

Based on some of Ed's early comments, I expected the 1st expansion to tackle diplomacy. I now have 0 expectations for it.