Is luck too important?

[Eliminator_Sr]

Imagine there is an event that can randomly reduce the population of all your cities by up to 10.

The Chance of it triggering at a specific point in the game is 50%.
In your current game, it triggers.

You can now use your agency to adapt to this new situation by focusing more on food, and setting everything up for additional growth to get that population back.
What you cannot do is use that agency to end up in a situation that is equal, or better, than you would have been, had that event not occurred.

That's a terrible event.

Can you guys give some examples of what you are talking about with regards to 'unfair' RNG situations? Because, I don't think there is anything even remotely like this in Civ6. No offense but it really seems like some of you are making a mountain out of a molehill here. Yeah occasionally you will draw a bad start (present since civ1) but in general I think they did a good job of providing balanced and interesting maps and many players enjoy the challenge of overcoming such obstacles to the point where they intentionally handicap themselves. I can't really think of anything else that falls into the unfair category. Yes - they need to make some balance changes but the game is far from broken or not fun because of luck IMO.

 

[Victoria]

Tic tac toe? ... Omg, thats so much in favour of the first player.

A significant event in turn 300 can make little difference to the outcome but a small loss at the beginning has nock on effects. So for example your warrior gets killed by an early horseman in the open. It may not sound like a lot but as well as being more vulnerable you have to build a replacement putting you back 6 turns.

A game does allow wiggle room for such issues and has more wiggle room at prince than deity.
As the game is made harder and deity gets harder the 'luck' element becomes more important but also does the players skill. When deity gets super hard a good player will not always win due to bad luck but a poor player is unlikely to win because of good luck. I must repeat what I said before, a good player makes judgements based on luck.

A game IMO should have less 'luck' at the beginning than the middle or end but you also have to consider what is really luck versus what is calculated risk. And its not easy, taking it back to building slinger, slinger first or scout, builder. Slinger is safer and if there is an enemy nearby, better. Scout, builder is more efficient if there is nothing nearby.

The bad luck of starting without water on grassland or tundra is so much worse than the loss or a warrior. This is why everyone wants a restart option regardless of build order.

 

[Ryika]

Can you guys give some examples of what you are talking about with regards to 'unfair' RNG situations?

I don't think I've used the word "unfair"? If I have then I probably shouldn't have.

Because, I don't think there is anything even remotely like this in Civ6. No offense but it really seems like some of you are making a mountain out of a molehill here.

Ehh. Of course it's an over-the-top example, I didn't claim that there are events like that in Civ VI. I gave that example specifically to show the difference between a situation where you have agency, and a situation that you're put in, that you can't really do anything about.

Most RNG in Civ VI is like that - you start in a Tundra and don't find any city states early on? Well, guess you'll have a slow start. And again, I'm not saying that's a "problem", I'm just saying that there are probably more interesting ways of doing these things.

Yeah occasionally you will draw a bad start (present since civ1) but in general I think they did a good job of providing balanced and interesting maps and many players enjoy the challenge of overcoming such obstacles to the point where they intentionally handicap themselves. I can't really think of anything else that falls into the unfair category. Yes - they need to make some balance changes but the game is far from broken or not fun because of luck IMO.

And I didn't claim any of that either, all I'm arguing for is that they should add more situational stuff that you can use to make a start that would just be a "bad start" work differently, while at the same time increasing the influence a skillful player can have and increasing the difference between starting locations.

 

[Melchizedek]

In Civ I I've seen a fortified militia on a mountain take down battleships and tanks. There is less luck in Civ now than there used to be. Anyway, two things:

1. Much of what some call "luck" is them only knowing how to use a few strategies. An "unlucky" start may just be one that suits a plan you haven't thought of.
2. I like some luck even in MP. The goal isn't ascertaining who is the best player; it is fun. Besides, if you play enough, the luck evens out.