Events in BOTM

[da_Vinci]

Hey, that would be great! The GH would give the same result to all players.

Maybe not ... if you find the GH before or after the AIs find some, won't players still get different results?

dV

 

[RobertTheBruce]

Maybe not ... if you find the GH before or after the AIs find some, won't players still get different results?

dV

The goody hut results would still depend on the order huts were popped as well as the unit type that pops the hut. I don't really understand how the GOTM benefits in this scenario.

The designer would know the result of a beeline to a hut visible in the starting save. Why not just give all contender starts Bronze Working or start with 5 barbarians 4 tiles from the initial city Obviously, the designer wouldn't publish a save where a large fraction of the players would die in the first 10 turns. (Maybe for April 1st but not regularly) This leads back to no huts near the starting spot since everyone would "know" the most probable path to a nearby hut would produce a "good" result. Huts far from the starting location will be random under either system as the AI explores and pops huts.

I'm sure Firaxis' programmers didn't have the reproducibility of GOTM play in mind when they made the game. Multiple RNG seeds don't help casual play or HOF games and its probably requires major surgery to separate the RNG calls into different categories and will require changes to the save file formats. Its a lot of work for a pretty questionable benefit.

 

[Ribannah]

Obviously, the designer wouldn't publish a save where a large fraction of the players would die in the first 10 turns. (Maybe for April 1st but not regularly)

Ah, where have the days of Civ2 gone that on April 1 we were provided with a starting location on a small patch of ice far from the rest of the world.

Mind you, against the Civ2 AI some of us still managed to win that game.

 

[joncnunn]

I'm not particularly surpized; on Civ 2 on Diety (huge map) I routintely won twince by conquering all but one city and then lauching the space ship. Oh and all without actually being the one declaring war.

Ah, where have the days of Civ2 gone that on April 1 we were provided with a starting location on a small patch of ice far from the rest of the world.

Mind you, against the Civ2 AI some of us still managed to win that game.

 

[PutCashIn]

To DS, I dunno about that GP generation, according to robert if we start with the same save, and both move exactly the same moves, both build a GA and a GP wonder at the same turn, both make exactly the same moves after that, we should both have the same GP pop out....?

(although, im pretty sure i've had a save of 5 french warriors outside Madrid on Earth18Civs, then reloaded untill they won, without engaging the 'new seed' option, attacking with the same guy first etc, untill I've won, just to prove to myself I could warrior rush germany, rome and spain....and I'm pretty sure success was gained by a personal faith in a new seed or random list being generated every, say, minute...

...but as robert sounds like a computer god, I will believe him, thus I now try and convince you DS, that if we had a calculator big enough, we could both rig the game to end up with excatly the same results, even played simultaneously on different computers)

PS: if the programming dude thinks 'routine' comes from 'twice' then maybe I now know why there are bugs in software...

 

[da_Vinci]

To DS, I dunno about that GP generation, according to robert if we start with the same save, and both move exactly the same moves, both build a GA and a GP wonder at the same turn, both make exactly the same moves after that, we should both have the same GP pop out....?

This would depend on how faithfully the AI makes the same moves as well, wouldn't it? What does the AI do to decide whether the scout moves NW or NE, if the value score that its decision rule calculates is equal for both (assuming that is how it "thinks")? Does it consult the RNG list, or might it make a new call to the clock?

(although, im pretty sure i've had a save of 5 french warriors outside Madrid on Earth18Civs, then reloaded untill they won, without engaging the 'new seed' option, attacking with the same guy first etc, untill I've won, just to prove to myself I could warrior rush germany, rome and spain....and I'm pretty sure success was gained by a personal faith in a new seed or random list being generated every, say, minute...

Hmm ... I have had to try to replay combat after a crash and have been able to reproduce the exact same wins and losses, with the exact same post combat hit points for the surviving units. So I tend to agree with RtB's assessment.

dV

 

[Ribannah]

This would depend on how faithfully the AI makes the same moves as well, wouldn't it? What does the AI do to decide whether the scout moves NW or NE, if the value score that its decision rule calculates is equal for both (assuming that is how it "thinks")? Does it consult the RNG list, or might it make a new call to the clock?

It does run the RNG, but there is more than one RNG instance in Civ4 (as there were in Civ3 and Civ2). I.e., some random events use the same 'list', and others use other 'lists'.

I don't know which random number generator is used in Civ4, but the ones that come with standard software are usually very poor, particularly highly autocorrelated, which can be nasty if it hits you (like several tanks losing to spearmen in a row, or several non-artists after another against the odds). A good RNG is the Mersenne Twister algorithm, but this has to be programmed (or at least added: there are code samples) by the developer.

 

[JerichoHill]

I like the random events in BtS, as it makes the game to me, more dynamic and fun. I hate it when I've been whipping and my city revolts, but that's a price I pay. I love it when my library produces more science, or when a wedding occurs that's good for relations...

I dont play xOTm first and foremost to have the best game vs. the rest. I play to learn from everyone else how to be a better player.

 

[jesusin]

Is that any bigger in its effect than the usual randomness in great person generation, where you may have set yourself up for an 80% chance of an artist, but then you randomly get a scientist or a prophet instead?

(Great explanation btw)

If you have allowed your GPpool to get a 20% contamination you deserve another GP.

 

[kcd_swede]

Random events that can be countered or steered in some way should be allowed. Keeping enough workers to fix pillaged or random destroyed pastures is the same thing, a strategy thing. Same with keeping enough cash on hand to mitigate or improve the options you get. Each building has its own effects but you oughtta know that a forge can burn down and a library can get extra research and a cathedral can blah blah blah. Its part of the game. That said... I usually turn off random events ever since I broke a mirror while walking under a ladder when a black cat crossed my path.

 

[Niklas]

Random events that can be countered or steered in some way should be allowed. Keeping enough workers to fix pillaged or random destroyed pastures is the same thing, a strategy thing.

This is a very interesting point. I agree that "bad" random events are those that cannot be affected or countered by player actions, and that those that can are generally not so bad to keep around. A randomly destroyed pasture is such a thing. You can rebuild the destroyed pasture using the workers you should have anyway, just as you say.

But, and that's a big but, that's only true once your game has progressed far enough. If you build a pasture on turn 24, and have it destroyed at random on turn 27, there's no way you can recover that blow. Sure the game may not be lost (unless it's on deity), but from a competitive perspective you just lost maybe 20 turns on your end date. That's a huge effect, and there's absolutely nothing you can do about it.

I don't mind random events in general, but I strongly dislike unbalancing random events. And since many events are more unbalancing the earlier they appear, I would like to see random events removed from the first X turns of the game. Maybe X=100 on Epic. That's enough for me to nerf some of the most unbalancing effects.

Some others should simply be removed. The free GA is one of those. Random popping of mine resources is another.

 

[azzaman333]

But random popping of mine resources isn't a random event. It's been in the game since Vanilla.

 

[RobertTheBruce]

But random popping of mine resources isn't a random event. It's been in the game since Vanilla.

Delaying the free/destroyed pasture events in the early game is probably a good idea. Maybe require two cities or reaching the classical era to get these events if a turn delay isn't possible. Losing or gaining a pasture and 6 worker turns in the very early game is a big effect. Working a free pasture and speeding your first worker build is a bit unfair and its hard to rebuild a pasture in the very early game when there are many other demands for few workers.

I've had barb archers pillage pastures before I could hook up a road to build a chariot. This usually brings comments about my feeble fog busting not that barbs make the game unfairly based on luck. You have can try to reduce the probability but there is an opportunity cost (do I want to produce two more warriors to fog bust before starting a settler?) so I don't see this as a big problem. The pasture events can't be avoided so they present a bigger issue. Sure, sometimes Conan the Barbarian wins a couple of low odds battles and destroys your game but there is an element of chance in CIV.

The random resource pops on mines are overpowered but buried in the game so they can't be avoided. Popping a happiness and commerce boost in the early game can really have a huge effect and I think we should ban events which have game changing effects like this.

The events with small effects and no choice (prairie dogs, parrots, diplomatic blunder etc) don't seem to bother anyone. Most of the other events have an opportunity cost and are fine. (either a small or no benefit or small loss with a possible improvement in exchange for cash or temporary unhappiness) A risk of fire is just part of investing hammers into a forge in BtS. Its just a matter of removing the events which can have really large game changing effects especially early.

I think that includes the pasture events and free great people. What other events do you think tilt the game too far toward chance?

 

[Niklas]

The random resource pops on mines are overpowered but buried in the game so they can't be avoided.

Surely there's a value in the XML somewhere dictating the probability of a resource pop? Wouldn't it then be possible to supply the GOTM/HOF mod with a version of that XML file with that value set to 0?

 

[Erkon]

If you have allowed your GPpool to get a 20% contamination you deserve another GP.

Don't forget that it is possible to use GPs in non-cultural games! A typical trick is to speed up the generation of a GE by running a scientist for a couple of turns while adding the risk of getting a GS. It's a typical risk/reward judgment that is a fundamental part of the game.

The margin that kcd_swede mentions is a great improvement in BtS. It leads to the decision of how much margin you want to play with. If you want to gamble, you run with no margins. If you want to play it safe, you keep 100 gold and an extra worker or two. It's part of the strategy.

I support the idea to remove random events that are very unbalancing, but I object to reducing the randomness of the game. The actual idea to compete in Civ is quite silly . In my eyes, the purpose with GOTM is to compare the actions by players when they react to different circumstances.

 

[Lexad]

Civ is much about uncertainty. The script is not deterministic, there's always a probability for AI to go for Pyrs or for horse archers instead. The outcome can be determined by a fact that you decided your worker should build road on one tile instead of the other, or that you scout chose a hill to end his move instead of a nearby forest - not by the efficiency of your moves to get Pyrs. And then more skillful player might lose Pyrs, and less experienced, but more lucky - get them. You cannot rule out these effects as they are the foundation of the game. Same here why I do not object events - they seem quite in the rut. In BOTM-1 I had my only horse pasture destroyed 4 times in a row in BCs - still, this hasn't prevented me from finishing 2nd in Gauntlet. Neither was it the factor to distinguish mine from Obormot's outstanding result - it was lack of aggressiveness and strategic outlook. So I'm for retaining random events.

 

[jesusin]

Don't forget that it is possible to use GPs in non-cultural games!
...
I support the idea to remove random events that are very unbalancing, but I object to reducing the randomness of the game. The actual idea to compete in Civ is quite silly . In my eyes, the purpose with GOTM is to compare the actions by players when they react to different circumstances.

Really??? Are there people playing for non-cultural VCs? Why would anyone do that?




In my eyes, the purpose with GOTM is to compare the actions by players when they react differently to the same circumstances and thus reach different results.

 

[kcd_swede]

In my eyes, the purpose with GOTM is to compare the actions by players when they react differently to the same circumstances and thus reach different results.

That's why I'm here. I want to learn what worked, what worked well, and what didn't work. (I usually find out what works very badly all on my own, thanks anyhow). The discussions are very useful. I've only played 3 xOTM so far but it has greatly improved my learning curve.

Sure... I could just reload my own old saves and replay games using different strategies, but that is boring (and I usually get confused thinking I already did something that I didn't do yet, etc). Also, I doubt I would come up with some of the strategies the good players use all by myself. Besides, I consider it cheating to reload even in non-xOTM games, and I can't see any point cheating at solitaire.

Random events don't matter much to me, but I would be infavor of removing them from the early game since small factors tend to multiply as the game goes on, and what seemed small at first could be a big difference later, and even affect your strategy, I suppose.

 

[morpheus11]

I am like kcd_swede. I have played 3 BOTMs and have improved from not winning at all on Noble to winning on Prince. This comes from getting comments on what I have done and reading reports on the games that I have played.

However, I have also learned how to recover from events that happen in a game by reading how other people have handled another similar event. Understanding why people make the decision they make helps to change the way I think about things in the game.

IMHO, random events might not allow for the exact comparision of 2 games, but it can help in understanding the thought process of a better player so us less experienced players can learn from them. And eventually be able to think on our own.

 

[oncable]

I am not a fan of the random events either. It is a pleasure to see a carefully planned strategy executed properly and have the expected outcome. In a cultural game it is not a pleasure to have a hurricane destroy your cathedral when you have had to put together so many prerequisites to get it built. Of course the whole RNG thing is necessary for battles, but major catastrophes or unearned gifts should not be in GOTMs, IMHO.